f   E 

762 

A3 
1912 


UC-NRLF 

lllliii  1 

$B    m    5^7 

in 

00 
CM 

o. 


PEACE.  PATRIOTIC 


AN  D 


RELIGIOUS  ADDRESSES 


BY 


PRESIDENT   TAFT 


^   DELIVERED  DURING  HIS  ADMINISTRATION 


PUBLISHED     BY 

INTERNATIONAL     PEACE     FORUM 

185     MADISON     AVENUE 

NEW     YORK     CITY 


WILLIAM   HOWAKD  TAFT 


4 

i 

I 

4 
I 

I 


h 


\ 


INTRODUCTION         M  ^ 


The  International  Peace  Forum  takes  pleasure  in  presenting  to  tlie 
public  the  accompanying-  address-es  delivered  during  his  present  admin- 
istration by  President  William  Howard  Taft.  They  are  but  few  of  his 
platform  efforts  in  behalf  of  the  religious,  educational  and  patriotic 
interests  of  the  country,  but  they  show  how  faithfully  he  has  served 
every  good  cause  of  Church  and  State,  without  partisanship,  sectionalism 
or  sectarianism,  and  therefore  how  much  he  is  'entitled  to  the  gratitude 
and  esteem  of  all  who  are  devoted  to  the  spiritual,  moral  and  political 
welfare  of  the  Nation.  The  Forum  is  not  a  political  organization.  It 
is  enlisted  in  the  cause  of  Industrial,  Social  and  International  Peace. 
It  is  not  unmindful,  however,  of  the  noble  and  inspiring  service  of  Presi- 
dent Taft  in  behalf  of  the  Peace  movement,  and  therefore  does  not 
hesitate  to  urge  the  importance  of  his  re-election,  that  there  may  be 
no  backward  step  in  the  advance  toward  Industrial  and  International 
Peace  that  has  been  so  pronounced  during  the  Talt  administration. 
Towering  above  narrow  partisanship,  ignoring  sectional  lines  and  over- 
flowing the  boundaries  of  denominationalism,  he  has  served  the  people, 
regardless  of  creed,  caste  and  party,  exalted  the  flag,  defended  the  Con- 
stitution, and  made  his  country  first  among  the  nations  of  the  earth. 

W.  A.  HUNSBERGER,  D.D..  Ph.D., 

Executive  Vice  President, 
International  Peace  Forum. 


Remarks  of  President  Taft  to  Miss  Booth  and  Officers  of  the  Sal- 
vation Army,  in  the  East  Room  of  the  White  House,  February 
20,  1911. 

"Anything  that  I  can  do  to  testify  to  the  feeling  that  I  have  in  re- 
spect to  the  good  work  that  you  and  your  Association  are  doing,  I  am 
glad  to  do,  and  Mrs.  Taft  sympathizes  with  me  in  that.  I  valued  the 
opportunity  to  hear  you  last  night,  and  I  thank  you  for  giving  it  to  me." 


312*^69 


hemabks  of  peesident  tait  at  a  banquet  given  in  his 
honor  by  the  american  peace  and  arbitration  league 
in  the  ballroom  of  the  hotel  astor.  new  york  city, 

MARCH  22.  1910. 

Mb.  Pbesident,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  t — In  the  first  place,  I  should 
like  to  thank  the  American  Peace  and  Arbitration  League  for  the  com- 
pliment of  this  beautiful  bai>«|aet.  I  claim  to  be  an  expert  in  banquets. 
Therefore,  when  I  say  that  this  is  a  beautiful  banquet  and  one  of  the 
finest  that  I  have  ever  attended,  I  hope  it  may  convey  the  superlative. 

In  the  next  place,  I  should  like  to  say  th^t  the  significance  of  this 
meeting  is  not  in  the  fact  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  is 
here  seeking  peace  by  arbitration,  but  it  is  that  such  a  doctrine  has  been 
advocated  by  a  Keutuckian,  former  Senator  McCreary, 

I  am  glad  to  see  about  me  here  ambassadors  of  powerful  countries 
and  ministers  representing  the  strength  of  Europe  and  of  this  hemis- 
phere— all  in  favor  of  peace  by  arbitration.  The  truth  is  that  the  sub- 
ject does  not  offer  much  opportunity  for  variety.  W«  are  all  in  favor 
of  virtue;  we  are  all  in  favor  of  goodness,  and  we  are  all  in  favor  of 
peace ;  and  as  peace  can  be  best  maintained  by  arbitration  and  con- 
ciliation, of  course  we  are  in  favor  of  it,  even  if  we  come  from  Kentucky 
— in  faror  of  resorting  to  arbitration  rather  than  to  war.  I  say  we  all 
are,  bnt  I  know  there  are  some  gentlemen  who,  in  order  to  bo  unlike 
most  others,  favor  war  as  a  necessary  treatment  of  a  nation  in  order 
to  develop  its  finest  qualities,  and  I  am  not  disposed  t*  say  that,  as  we 
look  back  in  history,  some  of  the  most  dreadful  wars  in  history,  notably 
that  of  our  Civil  War,  could  hardly  have  been  avoided  if  we  were  to 
accomplish  the  good  which  that  war  did  accomplish.  But  as  a  general 
thing  we  are  all  opposed  to  war,  because  war  is  hell.  And  when  you 
have  said  that,  and  s%id  that  any  means  of  avoiding  it  by  arbitration  or 
conciliation  is  to  be  sought,  it  seem«  to  me  that  it  is  difficult  to  arouse 
a  controversy  om  the  subject.  But  my  friend  from  Kentucky  and  I  stand 
together  in  thi»— that  because  we  are  in  favor  of  universal  peace,  and 
in  favor  of  arbitrati«a  in  order  to  secure  it,  that  does  not  mean  that  we 
are  in  favor  of  one  country  givingf  up  that  which  we  now  use  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  x>«ace,  to  wit,  our  Army  and  our  Navy. 

I  don't  want  to  seem  inconsistent  in  speaking  so  emphatically  in 
favor  of  peace  by  arbitration,  and  in  using  every  effort  that  I  can  bring 
to  bear  on  Congress  to  have  two  more  battleships  this  year.  I  am  hopeful 
that  we  may  continue  with  that  until  the  Panama  Canal  is  constructed, 
so  that  then  our  naval  force  shall  be  doubled  by  reason  of  the  connection 
between  the  two  coasts ;  and  then  we  can  stop  and  think  whether  we  wish 
to  go  further.  Perhaps  by  that  tim«  there  shall  be  adopted  by  general 
agreement  a  means  of  reducing  armament.  Certainly,  whenever  it  comes, 
we  will  not  be,  I  am  sure,  the  power  to  interfere  with  that  general 
movement. 

I  know,  or  I  feel  confident,  that  there  are  many  executive  heads 
who  have  longed  for  peace.    The  expense  of  armament  is  working  toward 


peace.  The  expense  of  war,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  is  having-  greater  weig-ht 
in  securing-  peace  than  the  expense  of  lives.  A  nation  does  not  lightly 
enter  upon  war  now  for  two  reasons :  First,  because  the  expense  is  so 
great  that  it  is  likely  to  lead  to  banl*ruptcy  even  if  she  wins ;  and,  second, 
if  she  does  not  win  the  government  or  dynasty  or  whatever  it  may  be 
that  is  in  control  of  the  government  is  likely  to  go  down  under  the 
humiliation  of  that  defeat  at  the  hands  oi  her  own  people.  Those  two 
things  are  working  in  a  healthful  way  toward  ultimate  peace. 

Now,  if  we  have  a  permanent  court  of  arbitration — one  to  which 
we  can  easily  refer  all  questions — the  opportunity  is  likely  to  be  seized 
upon — certainly  to  be  seized  upon  by  that  country  that  is  in  the  contest 
to  follow,  if  war  is  to  follow,  not  quite  prepared ;  and  so,  by  its  demand- 
ing or  proposing  a  reference  to  the  court,  it  will  put  the  other  country 
in  the  attitude  of  desiring  war — an  attitude  that  I  think  no  country 
would  like  under  present  conditions  to  occupy  before  the  world.  As  a 
resort  to  this  permanent  court  becomes  more  and  more  frequent,  ques- 
tions which  can  be  submitted  in  the  view  of  the  nations  will  grow  broader 
and  brop.der  in  their  scope. 

I  have  noticed  exceptions  in  our  arbitration  treaties,  as  to  reference 
of  questions  of  honor — of  national  honor — to  courts  of  arbitration.  Per- 
sonally, I  don't  see  any  more  reason  why  matters  of  national  honor 
should  not  be  referred  to  a  court  of  arbitration  any  more  than  matters 
of  property  or  matters  of  national  proprietorship. 

I  know  that  is  going  further  than  most  men  are  willing  to  go,  but 
as  among  men  we  have  to  submit  differences  even  if  they  involve  honor, 
now,  if  we  obey  the  lav/,  to  the  court,  or  let  them  go  undecided.  It  is 
true  that  our  courts  can  enforce  the  law,  and  as  between  nations  there 
is  no  court  with  a  sheriff  or  a  marshal  that  can  enforce  the  law.  But  I 
do  not  see  why  questions  of  honor  may  not  be  submitted  to  a  tribunal, 
supposed  to  be  composed  of  men  of  honor  who  understand  questions  of 
national  honor,  to  abide  by  their  decision,  as  well  as  any  other  question 
of  difference  arising  between  nations. 

Now,  there  is  one  question  that  I  think  is  within  the  actual  control 
of  Congress,  action  upon  which  will  promote  the  power  of  the  Executive 
in  preventing  questions  of  embarrassment  and  difficulty  between  this 
country  and  other  countries  with  whom  we  would  be  at  peace.  I  am 
not  sure  how  this  will  strike  the  Kentucky  mind,  because  when  we  reach 
the  Constitution  and  the  division  of  power  between  the  States  and  the 
United  States,  unless  it  involves  an  appropriation  to  the  general  welfare 
in  the  neighborhood  of  Kentucky,  we  on  different  sides  of  the  Ohio 
River — because  the  Senator  and  I  look  at  each  other  across  the  river — 
have  different  views. 

But  I  believe  that  the  Senator,  with  his  profound  knowledge  of 
constitutional  law,  will  nevertheless  agree  with  me  that  it  is  within 
the  power  of  Congress  to  put  in  the  hands  of  the  Executive  and  in  the 
courts  of  the  United  Statas  the  power  on  the  one  hand  to  prosecute  and 
on  the  other  hand  to  hear  crimes  denounced  by  Federal  law,  which  con- 
sist in  a  violation  of  the  righ1/s  of  aliens  secured  by  treaties  made  by  the 
United  States  with  other  countries.     With  all  the  solemnity  that  goe^ 


6 

with  the  making  of  onr  treaties— signed  by  the  President,  confirmed  bj-^ 
the  Senate — we  say  to  the  people  of  other  countries  who  come  to  this 
land :  "You  shall  be  protected  in  certain  rights ;  you  shall  enjoy  them 
under  the  protection  of  the  United  States."  And  then  the^^  come  over 
here  with  that  hope,  with  that  security,  and  a  conspiracy  is  entered 
upon  by  some  of  our  people  to  deprive  them  of  these  rights,  and  crimes 
are  committed  against  them,  and  their  representative  at  Washington 
comes  to  the  State  Department  and  says :  "Here  are  our  citizens  and 
our  subjects  who  have  com.e  here  under  the  protection  of  the  treaty 
which  you  made,  saying  that  they  should  enjoy  all  these  rights,  and 
they  have  been  deprived  by  violence  of  these  rights.  Now  we  ask  you  to 
fulfill  that  promise  to  prosecute  the  men  who  have  been  engaged  in  this 
violation  of  the  rights  of  the  people  we  represent,  as  you  promised  to  do."' 

And  we  say :  "Well,  we  are  very  sorry.  It  is  true  we  entered  into 
that  promise,  and  we  intended  to  have  it  kept,  and  therefore  we  will 
write  a  note  to  the  governor  of  the  State  and  express  the  hope  that  his 
district  attorneys  will  institute  prosecutions  before  the  grand  juries  of 
the  State  and  see  that  justice  is  done." 

When  it  usually  occurs  through  prejndice  existing  in  that  very  com- 
munity where  you  expect  to  have  justice  done.  Now  I  say  that  puts  us 
in  a  pusillanimous  position.  I  say  that  we  have  no  business  to  enter  into 
any  international  promise  that  we  cannot  use  the  right  arm  of  this 
Federal  Government  to  maintain  and  keep. 

I  dwelt  upon  this  subject  in  my  inaugural  address,  and  I  hope  to 
press  it  again  upon  the  attention  of  Congress ;  but  I  thought,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  we  are  all  agreed  about  arbitration  and  peace  and  the 
abolishment  of  war,  if  we  can  bring-  it  about,  that  I  would  suggest  one 
practical  means  by  which  you  can  clothe  your  Executive  with  a  means 
of  avoiding  difficulty  with  foreign  countries  and  with  a  means  of  avoiding 
putting  your  Chief  Executive  and  yourselves  in  a  hamiliating  position 
with  reference  to  your  pledged  promise. 

And  now,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  I  have  done.  I  did  not  expect  to 
talk  quite  so  long.  I  have  been  talking  all  the  week,  clear  from  Chicago 
here,  and  if  what  I  have  said  seems  to  lack  preparation,  you  may  under- 
stand that  you  can  not  prepare  every  speech,  however  dignified  and  how- 
ever attractive  the  audience. 


ADDRESS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  BANQUET  OF  THE  AMERI- 
CAN SOCIETY  FOR  THE  JUDICIAL  SETTLEMENT  OF  INTERNA- 
TIONAL DISPUTES,  AT  THE  NEW  WILLARD,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C, 
DECEMBER  17,  1910. 

We  hear  a  great  deal  nowadays  of  movements  and  societies  and 
legislative  resolutions  in  favor  of  international  peace,  and  I  assume  that 
no  one  would  wish  to  be  put  in  the  position  of  denying  that  peace  con- 
tributes greatly  to  the  happiness  of  mankind,  or  of  advocating  war  as 
an  institution  to  be  fostered  in  and  of  itself.  To  say  that  one  is  in  favor 
of  peace  is  not  much  more  startling  than  to  say  that  one  is  in  favor  of 


honesty,  in  favor  of  virtue,  in  favor  of  good,  and  opposed  to  evil.  That 
from  which  the  world  can  derive  the  most  benefit  is  a  practical  sug- 
gestion leading  to  more  permanent  peace.  jSIany  have  thought  that  this 
could  be  brought  about  by  an  agreement  among  the  powers  to  disarm, 
and  some  sort  of  a  convention  by  which  the  race  to  bankruptcy  in  the 
maintenance  of  great  armies  and  the  construction  of  great  navies  might 
cease  and  a  gradual  disarmament  follow.  Future  events  may  justify 
some  different  conclusion,  but  movements  in  the  past  along  this  line  have 
not  been  fruitful  of  practical  results.  Bankruptcy  and  the  burdensome 
weight  of  debt  involved  in  continued  armament  may  bring  about  a  change 
in  the  present  national  tendencies.  Meantime,  however,  I  am  strongly 
convinced  that  the  best  method  of  ultimately  securing  disarmament  is 
the  establishment  of  an  international  court  and  the  development  of  a 
code  of  international  equity  which  nations  will  recognize  as  affording 
a  better  method  of  settling  international  controversies  than  war.  We 
must  have  some  method  of  settling  issues  between  nations,  and  if  we  do 
not  have  arbitration,  we  shall  have  war.  Of  course  the  awful  results  of 
war  with  its  modern  armaments  and  frightful  cost  of  life  and  treasure, 
and  its  inevitable  shaking  of  dynasties  and  governments,  have  made 
nations  more  chary  of  resort  to  the  sword  than  ever  before ;  and  the 
present,  therefore,  because  of  this,  would  seem  to  be  an  excellent  time 
for  pressing  the  substitution  of  courts  for  force. 

I  am  glad  to  come  here  and  to  give  my  voice  in  favor  of  the  estab- 
lishment of  a  permanent  international  court.  I  sincerely  hope  that  the 
negotiations  which  Secretary  Knox  has  initiated  in  favor  of  an  interna- 
tional prize  court — atter  the  establishment  of  that  court — will  involve 
the  enlargement  of  that  court  into  a  general  arbitral  court  for  intei'- 
national  matters.  It  is  quite  likely  that  the  provisions  for  the  consti- 
tution of  the  arbitral  court  will  have  to  be  different  somewhat  from 
those  that  govern  the  selection  of  members  of  the  prize  court,  but  I 
am  glad  to  think  that  the  two  movements  are  in  the  same  direction  and 
are  both  likely  to  be  successful. 

What  teaches  nations  and  peoples  the  possibility  of  permanent 
peace  is  the  actual  settlement  of  controversies  by  courts  of  jarbitration. 
The  settlement  of  the  Alabama  controversy  by  the  Geneva  arbitration, 
the  settlement  of  the  seals  controversy  by  the  Paris  Tribunal,  the  settle- 
ment of  the  Newfoundland  fisheries  controversy  by  The  Hague  Tribunal 
are  three  great  substantial  steps  toward  permanent  peace,  three  facts 
accomplished  that  have  done  more  for  the  cause  than  anything  else  in 
history. 

If  now  we  can  negotiat-e  and  put  through  a  positive  agreement  with 
some  great  nation  to  abide  the  adjudication  of  an  international  arbitral 
court  in  every  issue  which  can  not  be  settled  by  negotiation,  no  matter 
what  it  involves,  whether  honor,  territor\%  or  money,  we  shall  have  made 
a  long  step  forward  by  demonstrating  that  it  is  possible  for  two  nations 
at  least  to  establish  as  between  them  the  same  system  of  due  process 
of   law   that   exists    between    individuals    under    a    government. 

It  seems  to  be  the  view  of  many  that  it  is  inconsistent  for  those 
of  us  who  advocate  any  kind  of  preparation  for  war  or  any  mainten- 


8 

ance  of  armed  force  or  fortification  to  raise  our  voices  for  peacefxil 
means  of  settling*  international  controversies.  But  I  think  this  view  is 
quite  unjust  and  is  not  practical.  We  only  recognize  existing-  con- 
ditions and  know  that  we  have  not  reached  a  point  where  war  is  im- 
possible or  out  of  the  question,  and  do  not  believe  that  the  point  has 
been  reached  in  which  all  nations  are  so  constituted  that  they  may  not 
at  times  violate  their  national  obligations. 

Take,  thus,  the  question  of  the  Panama  Canal.  We  have  a  property 
which,  when  completed,  will  be  worth  $400,000,000 — at  least  it  will  have 
cost  us  that.  It  has  been  built  not  alone  to  further  the  cause  of  the 
world's  commerce,  but  also  to  bring  oui*  eastern  and  western  seaboards 
closer  together  and  to  secure  us  the  military  benefit  enabling  our 
naval  fleet  to  pass  quickly  from  one  ocean  to  the  other.  Now,  the  works 
of  the  canal  are  of  such  a  character  that  a  war  vessel  might  easily  put 
the  canal  out  of  commission.  We  are  authorized  to  police  the  canal 
and  protect  it,  and  we  have  the  treaty  right  to  erect  fortifications 
there.  Fortifications  are  the  best  and  most  secure  method  of  protecting 
that  canal  against  the  attack  of  some  irresponsible  nation  or  armed 
force.  It  is  said  that  we  could  neutralize  the  canal  and  by  inducing  all 
nations  to  agree  not  to  attack  the  canal  secure  its  immunity  from  in- 
jury. But  the  trouble  is  that  nations  are  quite  as  likely  as  men  to  vio- 
late their  obligations  under  great  stress  like  that  of  war.  It  seems 
to  me  that  we  ought  to  put  ourselves  in  a  position  with  reference  to 
this  very  valuable  and  delicate  piece  of  property  so  that,  should  auy  na- 
tion forget  its  obligation,  we  would  be  in  a  position  to  prevent  unlawful 
injury  to  this  instrument  of  commerce  so  valuable  to  the  world  and 
so  indispensable  to  us.  The  fact  that  we  fortify  the  canal  will  not  pre- 
vent us  from  discharging  all  international  obligations  that  we  may  have 
in  respect  to  it,  but  it  will  enable  us  to  defend  ourselves  in  its  posses- 
sion against  the  act  of  every  irresponsible  force  or  nation.  It  will  not 
prevent  our  maintaining  its  neutrality  if  that  is  wise  and  right. 

I  would  like  to  invite  attention  to  an  interesting  incident  within 
the  last  month.  Suppose  a  Dreadnought  under  the  command  of  the 
men  who  have  recently  been  in  command  of  Dreadtwiiphts  were  to  seek 
entrance  to  that  canal  by  force.  What  we  need  is  something  to  defend 
what  is  ours,  and  because  we  have  the  means  of  defending  it  is  no 
reason  why  we  should  not  neutralize  the  canal  completely  if  that  be 
wise. 

Again,  our  strong  feeling  in  favor  of  peace,  it  seems  to  me,  ought 
not  to  prevent  our  taking  the  proper  steps  under  existing  conditions 
to  maintain  our  national  defenses.  We  have  on  the  continent  of  the 
United  States  excellent  coast  defenses  for  every  important  harbor  that 
an  enemy  could  enter.  We  probably  ought  to  see  to  it  that  we  have 
ammunition  and  guns  enough  for  ready  use  in  case  of  emergency.  We 
have  a  small  but  very  efficient  Army  of  80,000  men.  We  have  a  militia 
of  about  135,000  men.  The  Army  is  so  constituted  that  we  could 
enlarge  it  from  a  skeleton  organization  into  a  much  larger  body.  We 
ought  to  have  more  trained  officers,  so  as  to  furnish  the  teachers  to  a 
larger  body  of  men  that  war  might  require  us  to  enlist. 


9 

There  has  been  a  good  deal  of  talk  in  the  papers,  and  some  refer- 
ence in  Congress,  to  the  supposed  helpless  condition  of  this  country  in 
the  event  of  a  foreign  invasion,  I  venture  to  think  that  much  more  has 
been  made  of  this  than  the  facts,  calmly  considered,  would  justify.  We 
have  a  very  good  Navy,  and  with  the  opening  of  the  Panama  Canal  it 
will  be  a  much  more  effective  one.  It  would  be  useful  to  prevent  the 
coming  of  an  invading  army  across  the  seas. 

The  people  of  this  country  will  never  consent  to  the  maintenance 
of  a  standing  army  which  military  experts  would  pronounce  sufficiently 
large  to  cope  in  battle  with  the  standing  armies  of  Europe,  should 
they  get  by  our  Navy,  avoid  oui*  harbor  defenses,  and  descend  upon  our 
coast.  If  this  leaves  us  in  a  position  of  helplessness,  then  so  be  it. 
For  those  who  understand  the  popular  will  in  this  country  know  that  it 
can  not  be  otherwise.  We  shall  do  everything  in  the  way  of  wise  mili- 
tary preparation  if  we  maintain  our  present  Kegular  Army,  if  we  con- 
tinue to  improve  the  national  militia,  if  we  pass  the  pending  volunteer 
bill,  to  go  into  operation  when  war  is  declared  and  not  to  involve  the 
Nation  in  a  dollar's  worth  of  expense  until  the  emergency  arises;  if 
we  pass  a  law,  now  pending  in  Congress,  which  will  give  us  a  force  of 
additional  officers  trained  in  the  military  art,  and  able  in  times  of  peace 
to  render  efficient  service  in  drilling  the  militia  of  the  States,  and  in 
filling  useful  quasi-civil  positions  that  are  of  the  utmost  advantage  to 
the  Government,  and  if  we  in  a  reasonable  time  accumulate  guns  and 
ammunition  enough  to  equip  and  arm  the  force  we  could  enlist  under 
our  colors  in  9,n  emergency. 

This  discussion  of  needed  military  preparations  does  not  sound 
very  well  at  a  peace  meeting,  but  the  trouble  about  a  peace  meet- 
ing is  that  it  seems  to  be  just  one-half  of  the  picture,  and  I  want  to 
introduce  the  whole  picture  in  order  that  what  is  resolved  here  and 
what  is  said  here  may  be  understood  to  be  said  with  a  view  to  existing 
conditions  and  to  the  practical  truth. 

I  have  said  this  much  in  order  to  allay  the  so-called  war  scare 
which  has  furnished  pabulum  for  the  newspapers  during  the  last  few 
days.  There  is  not  the  slightest  reason  for  such  a  sensation.  We  are 
at  peace  with  all  the  nations  of  the  world,  and  are  quite  likely  to  re- 
main so  as  far  as  we  can  see  into  the  future.  Just  a  little  more  fore- 
thought, a  little  more  attention  to  the  matter  on  the  part  of  Congress, 
and  we  shall  have  all  of  the  Army  and  all  of  the  munitions  and  ma- 
terial of  war  that  we  ought  to  have  in  a  Republic  situated,  as  we  are, 
3,000  miles  on  one  hand  and  5,000  miles  on  the  other  from  the  source 
of  possible  invasion.  Our  Army  is  much  more  expensive  per  man  than 
that  of  any  other  nation,  and  it  is  not  an  vmmixed  evil  that  it  is  so, 
because  it  necessarily  restricts  us  to  the  maintenance  of  a  force  which 
is  indispensable  in  the  ordinary  policing  of  this  country  and  our  de- 
pendencies, and  furnishes  an  additional  reason  for  our  using  every  en- 
deavor to  maintain  peace. 

I  congratulate  this  association  on  the  recent  foundation  of  Mr. 
Carnegie,  bj^  which,  under  the  wise  guidance  of  Mr.  Elihu  Root,  Mr. 
Knox,  and  their  associates,  an  income  of  half  a  million  of  dollars  an- 


10 

niially  is  to  be  exjioiuled  in  tho  practical  promotion  of  movements  to 
secnrvi  permanent  x)eace.  The  wise  discretion  given  to  tlie  trnstees,  and 
their  known  ability,  foresight,  and  common  sense,  insures  the  useful- 
ness of  the  gift. 

War  has  not  disappeared  and  history  will  not  be  free  from  it  for 
years  to  come,  but  the  worst  pessimist  can  not  be  blind  to  the  fact 
that  in  the  last  25  years  long  steps  have  been  taken  in  the  direction 
of  the  pea'jeful  settleinent  of  international  controversies,  and  the  es- 
tablishment of  a  general  arbitral  court  for  all  nations  is  no  longer  the 
figment  of  the  brain  of  a  dreamy  enthusiast. 


ADDRESS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  DINNER  OF  THE  PENN- 
SYLVANIA SOCIETY,  HOTEL  ASTOR,  NEW  YORK  CITY,  JAN- 
UARY 21,  1911. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Pennsylvania  Society  : — I  am  glad  to  be  here 
and  am  glad  to  know  that  so  much  of  the  energy,  the  enterprise,  and 
the  intelligence  of  New  Y'ork  has  been  contributed  by  the  sons  of  William 
Penn.  William  Penn  was  in  favor  of  peace.  So,  too,  are  the  men  of 
Pennsylvania.  But  I  assume  that  they  are  practical  men  who  do  not 
lose  sight  of  facts  and  existing  conditions  in  an  ecstacy  of  hope  and 
Utopian  enthusiasm. 

I  ain  going  to  invite  your  attention  to  the  question  now  pending 
in  Congress  as  to  whether  the  Panama  Canal  ought  to  be  fortified.  I 
can  not  think  that  any  careful  person  will  read  the  record  of  historical 
facts,  treaties,  and  acts  of  Congress,  and  diplomatic  negotiations  with- 
out conceding  the  full  right  of  the  United  States  to  fortify  the  canal. 
But  memories  are  short,  records  are  not  always  at  hand,  and  without 
in  the  slightest  degree  conceding  that  the  existence  of  the  full  right  of 
the  United  States  to  fortify  her  own  property  on  the  Isthmus  is  in  the 
slightest  doubt,  I  venture,  before  considering  the  question  of  the  policy 
of  fortifying  the  canal,  to  refer  to  the  historj^  which  makes  the  right 
incontestable. 

In  1850  we  made  the  Clayton-Bulwer  treaty  with  England,  which 
contemplated  a  canal  built  by  somebody  other  than  the  contracting  par- 
ties and  probably  by  private  enterprise  across  Central  America  or  the 
Isthmus  of  Panama.  By  that  treaty  we  agreed  with  England  that  we 
would  neither  of  us  own  any  part  of  the  land  in  which  the  canal  was 
to  be  built,  and  we  would  neither  of  us  fortify  it,  and  we  would  unite 
together  in  guaranteeing  its  neutrality  and  would  invite  the  rest  of 
the  nations  to  become  parties  to  the  agreement.  The  canal  was  not  built 
under  that  treaty.  The  French  attempted  it  and  failed.  We  had  a 
Spanish  war.  The  cruise  of  the  Oregon  of  12,000  miles  along  the  sea- 
coast  of  two  continents,  from  San  Francisco  to  Cuba,  at  a  time  when 
the  seat  of  war  was  in  the  West  Indies  fastened  the  attention  of  the 
American  people  upon  the  absolute  necessity  for  a  canal  as  a  military 
instrLiment   for  doubling  the   efficiency   of   our   Navy   and   for   preventing 


11 

a  division  of  our  forces  of  defense  which  might  in  the  future  subject 
lis  to  hinniliating  defeat.  This  lesson  brought  about  the  effort  to 
mod  11  y  the  Clayton-Iluhver  treaty  for  the  very  purpose  of  securing  the 
right  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  own  the  land  through  which 
the  canal  was  to  be  built,  to  construct  the  can^l  itself,  and  to  regain 
thvi  power  to  fortify  the  canal,  which  it  had  parted  with  in  the  treaty  of 
IS.")!)  under  .other  conditions.  The  »orrespondenee  between  Lord  Lans- 
downe  and  Mr.  Hay,  as  well  as  Mr.  Hay's  statement  to  the  Senate  in 
transmitting  the  treaty  which  was  finally  ratified,  show  beyond  per- 
Jid venture  that  it  was  recognized  by  both  parties  to  that  treaty,  first, 
th.it  the  canal  to  be  built  should  be  one  to  be  built  by  the  United  States, 
to  be  owned  by  the  United  States,  to  be  managed  by  the  United  States, 
and  that  the  neutrality  of  the  canal  which  was  to  be  maintained,  was 
to  be  maintained  by  the  United  States ;  second,  that  nothing  in  the 
ti-eaty  would  prevent  the  United  States  from  fortifying  the  canal,  and 
that  in  case  of  war  between  the  United  States  and  England  or  any  other 
country  nothing  in  the  treat}^  would  prevent  the  United  States  from  clos- 
ing the  canal  to  the  shipping  of  an  enemy.  In  the  absence  of  treaty  re- 
striction, of  course,  these  rights  inhere  in  the  sovereignty  of  the  United 
States  and  the  control  of  its  own.  It  is  perfectly  palpable  that  this 
was  insisted  upon  by  the  Senate,  for  the  reason  that  one  of  the  main 
motives  in  the  construction  of  the  canal  was  the  extension  of  the  coast 
line  of  the  United  States  through  the  canal  and  the  use  of  the  canal 
in  time  of  war  as  an  instrument  of  defense.  The  guaranty  of  neutrality 
in  the  treaty  la  subject,  and  necessarily  subject,  to  this  construction. 

The  purpose  and  assertion  of  the  right  of  the  people  of  the  United 
States  to  fortify  the  canal  are  shown  again  in  the  passage  of  the 
Spooner  Act  in  1902,  directing  the  President  to  build  the  canal  and  to 
make  proper  defenses.  The  treaty  with  Panama  reaffirms  the  treaty 
with  England,  made  in  1900,  and  expressly  gives  to  the  United  States  the 
power  of  fortification.  How,  then,  can  anyone  dispute  the  right  of  the 
United  States  to  fortify  the  canal,  when  the  English  treaty  was  amended 
for  the  very  purpose  of  regaining  it,  when  it  is  expressly  given  in  the 
treaty'  made  with  Panama  that  granted  us  the  land  on  which  to  build 
the  canal,  and  when  not  a  single  foreign  nation — including  in  this 
England,  who  has  made  a  treaty  with  us  on  the  subject — has  ever  seen 
fit  to  suggest  a  lack  of  power  to  do  that  which  an  act  of  Congress 
nine  years  old  directed  the  President  to  do,  and  on  the  faith  of  which 
$500,000,000   are   being  expended? 

The  right  of  the  United  States  to  fortify  the  canal  and  to  close 
it  against  the  use  of  an  enemy  in  time  of  war  being  established,  what 
should  be  its  policy?  We  built  the  canal  to  help  us  defend  the  country; 
not  to  help  an  enemy  to  attack  it.  Even  if  a  certain  and  practical 
neutralization  of  the  canal  by  hn  agreement  of  all  nations  could  be  se- 
cured to  us  when  engaged  in  war,  an  enemy  could  then  use  the  canal 
for  transit  to  attack  us  in  both  oceans  as  we  propose  to  use  it  to  de- 
fend ourselves.  Aftep  expending  $500,000,000  thus  to  make  our  national 
defense  easier,  are  we  to  surrender  half  the  military  value  of  the 
canal  by  giving  the  benefit  of  it  to  a  nation  seeking  to  destroy  us?     It 


12 

seems  to  me  that  the  very  statement  of  the  propositioa  carries  its  re- 
futation. 

But  it  is  said  that  we  ought  to  defend  the  canal  by  our  Navy.  I 
am  not  a  strategist ;  I  am  not  a  military  or  a  naval  expert ;  but  it  seems 
to  me  as  plain  as  that  one  and  one  are  two  that  a  navy  is  for  the 
purpose  of  defense  through  offense,  for  the  purpose  of  protection  by 
attack,  and  that  if  we  have  to  retain  a  part  of  our  Navy  -in  order  to 
defend  the  canal  on  both  sides,  then  the  canal  becomes  a  burden  and 
not  an  instrument  of  defense  at  all.  The  canal  ought  to  defend  itself, 
and  we  ought  to  have  fortifications  there  which  will  be  powerful  enough 
to  keep  off  the  navies  of  any  nation  that  might  possibly  attack  us. 
I  am  glad  to  see  that  Capt.  Mahan,  one  of  the  greatest  naval  strategists, 
in  a  communication  to  this  morning's  Tribune,  confirms  this  view. 

Again,  under  our  treaty  with  England  and  other  countries,  it  is 
we  who  guarantee  the  neutrality  of  the  canal.  It  is  not  the  other  coun- 
tries that  guarantee  it  to  us,  and  we  are  bound,  if  we  conform  to  the 
treaty  with  England,  to  put  ourselves  in  svich  a  condition  that  we  can 
perform  that  guaranty.  Suppose  England  is  at  war  with  some  other 
country  that  is  not  bound  to  us  by  treaty  rights  at  all ;  is  not  it  es- 
sential that  we  should  have  fortifications  there  to  protect  the  canal, 
not  only  for  our  own  use  and  for  the  world's  commerce,  but  for  the  use 
of  England  and  her  warships  as  a  means  of  passage?  In  other  words, 
we  have  to  preserve  that  canal  as  a  means  of  transit  to  belligerents 
in  time  of  war  as  long  as  we  are  ourselves  not  engaged  in  the  contro- 
versy. 

But  it  is  said  that  we  could  induce  all  the  powers  to  come  in  and 
consent  to  the  neutrality  of  the  canal  as  a  treaty  obligation.  I  should 
be  glad  to  do  this  if  possible ;  but  even  if  we  do  this,  can  we  feel  en- 
tirely safe  by  reason  of  that  agreement  from  a  possible  injury  to  the 
canal  by  some  irresponsible  belligerent,  at  least  under  conditions  as 
they  now  are? 

Then  it  is  said  that  the  fortifications  are  going  to  cost  $50,000,000. 
This  is  an  error.  The  estimated  cost  of  the  fortifications  for  the 
canal  is  $13,000,000.  That,  I  submit,  constitutes  hardly  more  than  two 
per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  the  canal — a  first  premium  for  insuring  its 
safety  that  is  not  excessive. 

It  is  also  said  that  it  will  cost  $5,000,000  a  year  to  maintain  them. 
This  is  also  an  error.  I  have  consulted  the  War  Department,  and  they 
advise  me  that  the  addition  to  the  annual  Government  cost  of  mainten- 
ance of  fortifications  and  military  establishment  in  time  of  peace  due 
to  the  fortifications  of  the  canal  would  not  exceed  half  a  million  dol- 
lars— an  annual  insurance  rate  after  first  cost  of  a  tenth  of  one  per 
cent. 

The  case  of  the  Suez  Canal  furnishes  no  analogy  whatever.  In 
the  first  place,  the  Suez  Canal  is  nothing  but  a  ditch  in  a  desert,  inca- 
pable of  destruction,  and  even  when  obstructed  it  can  be  cleared  within 
a  very  short  time.  The  Panama  Canal,  by  the  destruction  of  the  gate 
locks,  could  be  put  out  of  commission  for  two  years,  and  the  whole 
eo»nmerce  of  the  world  made  to  suffer  therefrom. 


13 

Ag-ain,  the  land  throug-h  which  the  Suez  Canal  runs  is  not  in  the 
jurisdiction  of  England  or  of  any  one  of  the  five  great  powers.  Many 
nations  partake  in  the  ownership  of  the  canal,  and  it  is  not  within 
the  control  of  any  single  nation.  The  circumstances  under  which  the 
Panama  Canal  has  been  building,  the  ownership  of  the  strip,  and  one 
of  the  main  purposes  for  which  it  was  constructed  are  very  different 
and  make  it  exactly  as  if  it  were  a  canal  cut  through  the  narrow  part 
of  Florida.  It  is  on  American  soil  and  under  American  control,  and 
it  needs  our  fortifications  for  national  defense  just  as  much  as  the  City 
of  Xew  York  needs  fortifications,  and  there  is  the  additional  reason 
that  we  ought  to  have  them  in  order  to  perform  our  international  obliga- 
tions. 

I  yield  to  no  one  in  my  love  of  peace,  in  my  hatred  of  war,  and  in 
my  earnest  desire  to  avoid  war.  I  believe  that  we  have  made  great 
strides  toward  peace  within  the  last  decade.  No  one  that  I  know  of 
goes  further  in  favor  of  settling  international  controversies  by  arbi- 
tration than  I  do,  and  if  I  kave  my  way  and  am  able  to  secure  the  assent 
of  other  powers,  I  shall  submit  to  the  Senate  arbitration  treaties  broader 
in  their  terms  than  any  that  body  has  heretofore  ratified,  and  broader 
than  any  that  now  exist  between  the  nations.  In  laying  down  my  office, 
I  could  leave  no  greater  claim  to  the  gratitude  of  my  countrymen  than 
to  have  secured  such  treaties.  But  I  can  not  permit  myself  in  the 
enthusiastic  desire  to  secure  universal  peace  to  blind  myself  to  the  pos- 
sibilities of  war.  We  have  not  reached  the  time  when  we  can  count 
on  the  settlement  of  all  international  controversies  by  the  arbitrament 
of   a   tribunal. 

I  welcome  most  highly  the  rapidly  increasing  ranks  of  the  advocates 
of  peace.  They  help  to  form  a  public  opinion  of  the  world  that  is, 
with  appreciable  progress,  forcing  nations  to  a  settlement  of  quarrels 
by  negotiation  or  peace  tribunal.  When  adjudication  by  arbitral  court 
shall  be  accepted,  the  motive  for  armament  will  disappear.  But  we  can 
not  hope  to  bring  about  such  a  condition  for  decades.  Meantime,  we 
must  face  the  facts  and  see  the  conditions  as  thej^  are.  Some  earnest 
advocates  of  peace  weaken  their  advocacy  by  failing  to  do  this.  War  is 
still  a  possibility ;  and  a  President,  a  Senator,  a  Congressman,  who 
ignores  it,  as  something  against  which  proper  precautions  should  be 
taken,  subjects  himself  in  time  of  peace  to  the  just  criticism  of  all  reason- 
able men,  and  when  war  comes  and  finds  the  nation  unprepared,  to  the 
unanimous  condemnation  of  his  indignant  fellow-countrymen. 


ADDT7ESS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  BEFORE  THE  THIRD  Nx\TIOXAT, 
PEACE  CONFEEENCE,  AT  THE  LYEIC  THEATER,  BALTIMORE, 
MD.,  MAY  3,  1911. 

Mb.  Chairman  and  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — It  expresses  my  feel- 
ini^-s  when  I  say  that  I  am  frightened  by  the  introduction  of  the 
chairman.     I  have  been  told  before  that  I   exercise  in  the  presic^ential 


14 

oflRce  greater  power  than  any  man  on  earth,  and  I  have  been  able  to 
take  that  idea  in  and  know  how  much  of  it  is.  real  fact  and  how  much 
of  it  is  eloquence  turning  a  good  period.  It  is  possible  that  the  Presi- 
dent does  exercise  greater  power  than  that  of  any  other  ruler  in  the 
world,  but  I  am  able  to  give  you  a  little  information  from  the  stand- 
point of  one  with  some  opportunity  to  observe,  and  I  am  bound  to 
say  that  the  burden  and  responsibility  of  the  position  are  brought  home 
to  him  much  more  clearly  than  the  power. 

Your  chairman  has  been  good  enough  to  refer  to  what  I  have  said 
with  reference  to  general  arbitration,  and  to  my  expressed  opinion 
that  an  arbitration  treaty  of  the  widest  scope  between  two  great  nations 
would  be  a  very  important  step  in  securing  the  peace  of  the  world.  I 
don't  claim  any  patent  for  a  new  discovery  in  that  suggestion,  be- 
cause I  have  no  doubt  that  it  has  often  been  made  before  and  has  long 
been  shared  by  all  who  understand  the  situation  at  all.  If  such  an 
arbitration  treaty  can  be  concluded  I  have  no  doubt  that  an  important 
step  will  have  been  taken,  but  it  will  not  bring  an  end  of  war.  It  is 
a  step  only,  and  we  must  not  defeat  our  purposes  by  enlarging  the  ex- 
pectation of  the  world  as  to  what  is  to  happen  and  by  then  disap- 
pointing it.  We  must  realize  that  we  are  dealing  with  a  world  that  is 
fallible  and  -full  of  weakness,  with  somewhat  of  wickedness  in  it,  and 
that  reforms  that  are  worth  having  are  brought  about  little  by  little, 
and  not  by  one  blow.  I  don't  mean  to  say  by  this  that  I  am  not  greatly 
interested  and  enthusiastic  in  seeking  to  secure  the  arbitration  treaty 
or  treaties  that  are  suggested,  but  I  do  think  we  are  likely  to  make 
more  progress  if  we  express  our  hopes  with  moderation  and  realize  the 
difficulties  that  are  to  be  overcome  than  if  we  proclaim  that  we  have 
opened  the  gate  of  eternal  peace  with  one  key  within  one  year. 

I  am  not  going  to  dwell  upon  the  question  of  the  arbitration  treaty 
which  is  in  the  process  of  negotiation.  The  truth  is,  I  would  much 
rather  stand  upon  the  platform  and  refer  to  such  a  step  when  taken, 
to  such  a  treaty  when  made  and  acquiesced  in,  than  to  discuss  it  during 
its  negotiation ;  and  therefore  I  would  wish  to  direct  the  few  remarks 
I  address  to  you  this  afternoon  to  other  but  kindred  subjects. 

I  have  recently  received  a  great  many  invitations  from  various  asso- 
ciations whose  titles  indicated  that  tlieir  purpose  was  the  promotion  of 
peace,  and  it  has  seemed  to  me  that  in  their  closer  co-operation  we  might 
find  some  opportunity  for  an  improvement  in  the  movement  and  give 
greater  force  to  the  cause  by  organized  expression.  You  have  a  congress 
here,  and  in  this  congress  I  assume  that  a  good  many  associations  take 
part.  Have  you  any  basis  of  organization  and  union  which  unites  your 
efforts  in  anything  but  this  congress?  Don't  you  think  you  had  better 
bind  your  peace  associations  together  in  a  federation  and  make  your 
efforts  united  toward  the  one  object  you  have  in  view?  Aren't  you  likely 
to  squander  a  little  of  your  force  if  you  maintain  isolated  associations 
without  union? 

My  second  suggestion  is  that  one  of  the  evidences  of  an  improvement 
in  the  world  for  peace  is  the  fact  that  all  state  departments,  all  foreign 
chancelleries,  are   themselves   now  organized  into   agencies   for   the   pro- 


15 

motion  of  peace  bj'  negotiation.  The  State  Department  at  Washing-ton 
hi.s  no  more  important  or  absorbing  duty  than  to  lend  its  good  offices 
to  the  20  Eepublics  of  this  hemisphere  to  prevent  their  various  ditler- 
ences  from  leading  into  war.  And  not  to  go  back  of  this  administration, 
there  have  been  four  instances  in  which  the  action  of  our  State  Depart- 
ment, taken  in  connection  with  some  of  the  influential  countries  of 
South  America,  has  absolutely  prevented  war,  which  20  or  30  years  ago 
would  certainly  have  ensued. 

The  recurrence  of  war  is  not  now  so  frequent  between  stable  and 
powerful  governments  maintaining  law  and  order  within  their  respective 
borders  as  it  is  in  those  governments  which  do  not  exercise  complete 
control  over  their  people,  and  in  which  revolutions  and  insurrections 
break  out,  not  only  to  the  injury  and  danger  of  the  people  and  their 
property  and  of  the  government  itself,  but  to  the  disturbance  of  all  the 
world  in  their  neighborhood.  It  is  with  reference  to  disturbances  of  this 
kind  that  the  United  States  and  the  other  great  Eepublics  of  this  hemi- 
sphere must  exercise  their  kindly  and  peaceful  influence  aj  much  as 
possible. 

One  of  the  difficulties  that  the  United  States  finds  is  the  natural 
suspicion  that  the  countries  engaged  have  of  the  motive  which  the  United 
States  has  in  tendering  its  good  offices.  Asseveration  of  good  faith  helps 
but  little  whei:e  the  suspicion  is  real,  and  yet  I  like  to  avail  myself  of  an 
opportunity  in  such  a  presence  as  this,  to  assert  that  there  is  not  in  the 
whole  length  and  breadth  of  the  United  States,  among  its  people,  any 
desire  for  territorial  aggrandizement,  and  that  its  people  as  a  whole 
will  not  permit  its  Government,  if  it  would,  to  take  any  steps  in  respect 
to  foreign  peoples  looking  to  a  forcible  extension  of  our  political  power. 

We  have  had  wars,  and  we  know  what  they  are.  We  know  what 
responsibilities  they  entail,  the  burdens  and  losses  and  horrors,  and  we 
would  have  none  of  them.  We  have  a  magnificent  domain  of  our  own  in 
which  we  are  attempting  to  work  out  and  show  to  the  world  success  in 
popular  government,  and  we  need  no  more  territory  in  which  to  show 
that.  But  we  have  attained  great  prosperity  and  great  power.  We  have 
become  a  powerful  member  of  the  community  of  nations  in  which  v/e 
live,  and  thei-e  is  therefore  thrust  upon  us  necessarily  a  care  and  respon- 
sibility for  the  peace  of  the  world  in  our  neighborhood  and  a  burden 
of  helping  those  nations  that  cannot  help  themselves,  if  we  may  do  that 
peacefully  and  etfectivel3\ 

Xow,  we  have  undertaken  such  a  duty  in  respect  to  Santo  Domingo. 
She  was  torn  with  contending  factions.  Foreign  governments  held  her 
bonds  and  desired  to  collect  what  was  due.  W^e  entered  into  an  arrange- 
ment by  which  we  put  in  our  revenue  officers  to  collect  the  revenues. 
We  took  charge  of  the  customhouse,  and  that  mere  agency  gave  us  an 
instrumentality  by  which  we  have  enabled  that  nation  to  go  on,  until 
she  is  rapidly  paying  off  her  debts  and  becoming  powerfid  and  pros- 
perous. While  our  revenue  collectors  have  been  there  she  has  had  no 
faction  or  revolution.  I  may  add  that  our  position  with  respect  to  Santo 
Domingo  enabled   us   to    intervene   when   she   and   Haiti    tlijuglit   it   was 


16 

necessary  to  fig-ht  about  something  and  to  indiice  those  two  nations  to 
submit  their  differences  to  The  Hague. 

And  now,  my  friends,  I  shall  not  continue  these  desultory  remarks. 
I  only  want  to  saj^  that  I  am  glad  to  come  here  to  this  world's  congress 
of  peace,  and,  in  so  far  as  I  have  any  representative  character,  by  my 
presence  here,  to  lend  to  it  the  support  and  approval  of  the  people  of 
the  United  States. 


ADDEESS    OF    PRESIDENT    TAFT   AT   ARLINGTON    CEMETERY,    ON 
MEMORIAL  DAY,  MAY  30,   1911. 

As  we  gather  in  this  assembly,  with  all  the  thoughts  that  its  sur- 
roundings suggest,  the  question  presents  itself,  "What  is  the  purpose  of 
these  commemorative  services?"  It  is  said  that  we  are  here  to  pay 
tribute  to  our  patriotic  dead — to  those  who  yielded  up  their  lives  that 
our  country  might  be  saved.  But  does  our  coming  here  and  do  our 
ceremonies  and  hymns  and  eloquent  tributes  make  the  dead  happier? 
If  from  somewhere  their  souls  contemplate  this  soene,  are  they  gratified 
merely  because  we  praise  them?  Is  it  not  rather  that  they  can  see  that 
the  influence  of  their  deeds  lives  after  them  in  the  uplifting  and  revital- 
izing of  the  highest  ideals  of  the  living?  These  ceremonies  are  not  for 
the  benefit  of  the  dead.  They  are  to  keep  green  the  memory  of  their 
deeds  and  thereby  to  stir  in  the  living  members  of  society — in  the  citi- 
zens of  to-day — the  spirit  of  high  appreciation  and  enthusiastic  emulation 
of  those  supreme  sacrifices  for  their  fellow-countrymen  that  the  sight  of 
these  graves  of  the  dead  makes  alive  to  us. 

Love  of  country,  love  of  family,  love  of  God — it  is  difficult  to  classifj^ 
these  affections  of  the  human  heart  and  soul,  for  they  so  melt  into  each 
other  that  the  one  who  has  most  of  one  has  most  of  all. 

As  we  stand,  however,  in  the  presence  of  the  dead  on  this  beautiful 
Mgiy  morning  and  seek  to  realize  and  enjoy  the  essence  of  patriotism 
which,  like  incense,  steals  into  the  atmosphere  of  this  sacred  spot,  we 
find  ourselves  slipping  into  a  conception  of  war  as  necessary  to  human 
development,  the  making-  of  human  character,  and  the  exhibition  of  the 
highest  human  ideals.  We  lost  sight  of  the  cruelty,  the  courage,  the 
arousing  of  the  most  brutal  hunaan  passion,  the  indifference  to  human 
suffering,  the  meanest  human  ambitions,  the  ghoulish  corruption,  and 
all  the  other  wickedness  that  follows  in.  the  trail  of  war,  and  we  think 
only  of  the  calm  spirit  of  supreme  self-sacrifice  that  ennobled  the  brave 
soldier  who  lost  his  life  in  the  shock  of  battle  and  who  rests  peaceful!/ 
with  his  comrades  in  these  beautiful  shades. 

Of  course,  it  is  necessary  that  we  should  have  sin  and  temptation  if 
we  would  have  exhibitions  of  virtue  which  resist  them ;  bvit  is  that  a 
reason  #or  favoring  either  temptation  or  sin?  Of  course,  in  order  that 
we  should  know  the  existence  and  power  of  the  highest  traits  of  the 
human  soul,  we  must  have  human  tragedies,  but  certainly  no  one  would 
promote  a  tragedy  for  the  purpose  of  furnishing  to  the  world  proof  of 
the   existence  of   such   traits.     Strive   as   we   may   to  prevent  or   destroy 


17 

them,  we  shall  have  sin  and  wickedness  and  temptation  and  tragedy 
enough  as  a  school  of  experience,  development  and  demonstration  of 
human  character.  The  same  answer  must  be  made  ^o  those  who  permit 
themselves  to  advocate  war  as  a  necessary  experience  in  the  development 
of  man. 

There  was  a  time  when  an  insult  by  one  man  to  another  in  the 
same  social  class  could  only  be  wiped  out  by  the  blood  of  the  other  in 
a  mortal  duel,  and  in  those  days  it  took  more  moral  courage  to  avoid  a 
duel  than  to  fight  one.  We  have  made  great  progress,  almost  within  our 
own  memory,  in  such  ideals.  If  that  be  true  of  men,  why  may  it  not  be 
true  in  the  near  future  of  nations?  Why  will  it  not  show  more  patriotism 
and  more  love  of  country  to  refuse  to  go  to  war  for  an  insult  and  to 
submit  it  to  the  arbitrament  of  a  peaceful  tribunal,  than  to  subject  a 
whole  people  to  the  misery  and  cruelty  and  suffering  and  burden  of  heavy 
cost  of  a  national  war,  however  glossed  over  by  the  excitement  and 
ambitions  and  the  glory  of  a  successful  conquest? 

The  lesson  in  national  restraint,  the  looking  at  things  as  they  are, 
the  rejecting  of  the  dictates  of  false  pride,  and  the  following  of  the 
teachings  of  the  Master  of  men  are  not  at  all  inconsistent  with,  and  do 
not  detract  from,  the  continuance  of  the  highest  love  of  country  and 
of  one's  countrymen. 

Far  be  it  from  me  to  minimize  in  any  way  by  these  suggestions  the 
debt  we  owe  to  the  men  buried  here  who  carried  on  the  successful 
struggle  that  resulted  in  the  abolition  of  the  cancer  of  slavery  and  which 
seemed  ineradicable  save  by  an  awful  slaughter  of  the  brightest  and 
bravest  and  best  of  the  Nation's  youth  and  manhood. 

I  shall  not  stop  to  discuss  whether  it  might  have  been  possible  to 
accomplish  the  same  great  reform  by  milder  methods.  Whether  that  be 
true  or  not,  the  supreme  sacrifice  of  these  men,  who  lie  about  us,  in  the 
course  of  advancing  humanity  can  never  be  lessened  ot  obscured  by  such 
a  suggestion.  But  the  thought  at  which  I  would  but  hint  this  morning 
is  that  even  in  the  hallowed  presence  of  these  dead,  whose  ideals  of 
patriotism  and  love  of  their  countrymen  it  needed  a  war  to  make  ever- 
lastingly evident,  we  should  abate  no  effort  and  should  strain  every 
nerve  and  avail  ourselves  of  every  honorable  possible  device  to  avoid 
war  in  the  future. 

I  am  not  blind  to  the  aid  in  creating  sturdy  manhood  that  the  mili- 
tary discipline  we  see  in  the  standing  armies  of  Europe  and  in  the  Regu- 
lar Army  of  this  country  furniishes,  nor  do  I  deny  the  incidental  benefits 
that  may  grow  out  of  the  exigencies  and  sequelae  of  war.  But  when  the 
books  are  balanced  the  awful  horrors  of  either  internecine  or  inter- 
national strife  far  outweigh  the  benefits  that  may  be  traced  to  it. 

Let  us  leave  this  beautiful  city  of  the  national  dead,  therefore,  with 
the  deepest  gratitude  to  the  men  whose  valorous  deeds  we  celebrate  and 
whose  memories  we  cherish  with  the  tenderest  appreciation  of  the  value 
of  the  examples  they  set,  but  with  a  determination  in  every  way  possible, 
consistent  with  honesty  and  manly  and  national  self-restraint,  to  avoid 
the  necessity  for  the  display  of  that  supreme  self-sacrifice  that  we  com- 
memorate to-day  in  them. 


18 


ADDEESS  OF  PKESIPENT  TAFT  AT  THE  MARION  (IND.)  BRANCH 
OF  THE  NATIONAL  HOME  FOR  DISABLED  VOLUNTEER  SOL- 
DIERS, JULY  2.  1911. 

Members  of  the  National  Volunteer  SoLi)iERs'  Home  of  Marion  : — 
Such  an  audience  as  this,  on  the  eve  of  the  natal  day  of  the  Nation, 
stirs  the  depths  of  one's  patriotic  feeling.  Harbors  of  jrefuge  and  havens 
of  rest  for  those  who  in  the  stormy  passages  of  their  lives  bared  their 
breasts,  in  behalf  of  their  country,  to  hostile  bullets,  serve  tw^o  high 
purposes :  In  the  first  place,  they  contribute  to  the  payment  of  their 
country's  everlasting  debt  to  its  defenders ;  and,  in  the  second  place,  they 
make  known  to  all  citizens  the  care  which  they  may  expect  from  a 
grateful  Nation  should  they  in  a  similar  crisis  offer  their  lives  to  save 
the  Government.  Better  than  monuments  of  brass  to  the  dead  are  the 
comforts  to  the  living  in  their  old  age,  as  an  evidence  of  the  country's 
love  and  veneration  for  patriotic  self-sacrifice.  Much  more  stimulating 
to  the  young  is  the  contemplation  of  the  Nation's  heroes  living  in  retire- 
ment, but  in  comfort,  at  its  expense,  and  bringing  back  in  their  grizzled 
faces,  in  their  armless  sleeves,  in  their  limbless  bodies,  the  dangers  they 
ran  and  the  deeds  they  did.  Of  course  such  a  presence  can  not  but  by 
reminiscence  suggest  the  subject  of  war,  for  it  was  in  the  greatest  war 
of  modern  times  that  the  members  of  this  home  earned  their  right  to  be 
here.  But  war  suggests  its  counterpart.  It  is  those  who  have  seen  the 
horrors  of  war,  who  have  felt  its  hardships,  and  have  realized  its  cruelties, 
and  seen  the  awful  passions  it  could  arouse,  who  have  witnessed  the 
suffering  and  brutality,  as  well  as  the  courage  and  self-sacrifice,  that 
know  its  evils,  and  that  feel  most  deeply  the  necessity  for  avoiding  it 
when  possible. 

No  man  loved  peace  more  than  Grant  and  Sherman.  Neither  general 
hesitated,  in  time  of  war,  to  accomplish  the  national  purpose,  to  sacrifice 
the  lives  that  were  necessary  to  achieve  victory.  Their  greatness,  how- 
ever, consisted  in  recognizing  the  necessity  for  action  and  in  seeing 
clearly  that  if  victories  were  to  be  won  lives  must  be  given  up,  and  that 
any  attempts  to  temporize  with  the  occasion  and  mitigate  the  awful 
horrors  would  only  lengthen  the  war  and  postpone  the  coming  of  peace, 
with  all  the  suffering  that  such  postponement  necessarily  entailed.  No 
men  were  really  more  tender-hearted  than  they ;  and  after  the  war 
none  were  more  emphatic  in  their  advocacy  of  peace  and  in  their  detesta- 
tion of  war.  It  is  certain  that  Grant  in  his  travels  in  Europe  took  less 
interest  in  the  memorials  of  Napoleon,  the  greatest  soldier  of  the  world, 
than  in  a  study  of  social  conditions  and  a  comparison  of  the  peoples  of 
the  countries  that  he  visited  with  those  of  his  own.  He  had  no  patience 
with  a  military  genius  who  sacrificed  countries  and  peoples  to  his  ambi- 
tion, and  whose  whole  history  is  nothing  but  a  trail  of  bloody  conqi/est 
following  the  lust  of  power  and'  ultimate  defeat,  in  all  of  which  the 
people  of  France  and  of  Europe  were  made  to  pay  the  cost  and  render 
the  sacrifices. 

I  am  far  from  saying  that  war  has  not  in  times  past  accomplished 
much  in  the  progress  of  the  world.     Whether  the  same  progress  might 


19 

have  been  achieved  in  a  more  peaceful  way  it  is  unnecessary  to  discuss. 
Probably  not.  It  was  by  war  that  this  country  gained  its  independence 
of  Great  Britain.  ,  One  hundred  and  thirtj^-iive  years  ago  the  Declaration 
of  Independence  was  signed,  which  changed  a  protest  under  arms  against 
unjust  government  to  a  successful  revolution.  If  England  had  been 
better  advised,  probably  war  would  not  have  ensued,  and  we  might  now 
be,  as  in  the  case  of  Canada,  cherishing  attachment  to  the  mother  country 
without  exercising  complete  independence.  Certain  it  is  that  the  lesson 
which  we  taught  England  she  took  to  her  heart,  and  in  her  colonial 
policy  she  continued  to  lighten  the  bonds  which  she  had  laid  upon  her 
colonies,  until  now  they  have  no  weight,  and  are  merely  nerves  of  affec- 
tion from  a  mother  to  children,  evincing  an  authority  that,  however 
great  in  form,  is  in  fact,  in  the  wisdom  of  the  mother  country,  one  of 
only  nominal  restriction.  When,  therefore,  our  forefathers  signed  that 
great  instrument  of  independence,  they  were  acting  not  only  on  behalf 
of  the  Thirteen  Colonies  of  America,  but  they  were  building  better  than 
they  knew  in  that  the  result  of  their  protest  was  to  be  a  change  of  the 
entire  colonial  policy  of  Great  Britain  in  the  making  of  her  English- 
speaking  colonies  that  girdled  the  earth  self-governing  and  independent ; 
and  this  result  was  achieved,  not  by  war  with  the  colonies,  but  by  the 
persuasiveness  of  the  error  that  she  had  made  in  dealing  with  us. 

The  War  of  1812  might  certainly  have  been  avoided  by  arbitration. 
The  questions  there  presented  were  questions  all  of  which  have  been 
settled  by  the  judgment  of  mankind  in  favor  of  our  side  of  the  con- 
troversy. 

The  War  with  Mexico — though  there  is  some  dispute  over  this — 
was  one  the  questions  of  which  were  capable  of  solution  by  an  impartial 
tribunal.  Whether  the  Civil  War  could  have  been  avoided  is  a  very  diffi- 
cult question  to  answer.  When  slavery  has  become  embedded  in  the 
social  fiber  of  a  country  it  is  possible  that  only  an  excision  of  a  war 
knife  can  remove  the  cancer. 

Nor  shall  I  attempt  to  answer  a  similar  question  as  to  the  Spanish 
War.  It  is  one  of  those  instances  of  internal  discussion  like  the  Civil 
War ;  and  yet  I  believe  that  the  submission  of  the  issues  to  a  tribunal 
might  have  affected  Spain's  treatment  of  Cuba  in  such  a  w^ay  that  we 
could  have  avoided  a  resort  to  arms.  The  truth  is  the  danger  of  war 
between  two  great  well-established  countries  with  modern  armaments  is 
much  less  than  that  kind  of  war  that  arises  from  bad  government  or 
from  the  ambition  of  sinister  men  in  a  weak  government,  who  overturn 
it.  The  awful  consequences  to  two  heavily  armed  cotmtries  under  modern 
conditions  of  war  have  been  a  great  deterrent  of  war ;  but  the  irrespon- 
sibility of  men  claiming  to  be  patriots  and  desiring  to  overturn  existing 
governments  where  law  and  order  are  not  well  established  has  led  to  a 
great  deal  of  guerilla  warfare  and  to  the  suffering  of  innocent  people, 
who  find  no  re&l  principle  involved  in  the  two  contending  parties  except 
that  of  ambition  for  power. 

Much  of  this  kind  of  work  has  occurred  in  South  America  and  in 
Central  America;  and  in  that  degree  of  guardianship  which  the  United 
States  must  feel  over  the  Eepublics  of  this  hemisphere,  in  maintaining 


20 

their  integrity  against  European  invasion,  we  ought  to  welcome  every 
opportunity  which  gives  us  a  legitimate  instrument  by  which  we  can 
make  less  probable  such  internecine  strife.  In  the  assertion  of  that  sort 
of  guardianship  we  have  to  be  very  careful  to  avoid  the  charge,  which  is 
always  made  by  the  suspicious,  that  we  are  seeking  our  own  aggran- 
dizement in  our  interference  with  the  affairs  of  other  countries  of  this 
hemisphere.  It  is  an  unfounded  charge,  for  we  envy  no  power  its  terri- 
tory. We  have  enough.  But  we  have  been  able  to  fend  off  war  in  five  or 
more  instances  of  recent  date,  because  of  our  attitude  as  an  elder  brother 
of  these  smaller  governments.  Thus,  in  Cuba,  after  the  Piatt  amendment, 
we  were  able  to  intervene  and  prevent  a  bloody  war  of  revolution,  and 
this  after  20,000  rebels  against  the  constituted  Government  were  in  arms 
immediately  outside  the  city  of  Havana,  ready  to  take  part.  We  were 
able,  by  reason  of  the  agreement  we  made  with  Santo  Domingo,  to  help 
her  collect  her  revenue  and  liquidate  and  satisfy  her  legitimate  debts, 
by  putting  our  agents  in  charge  of  the  customhouses,  to  take  away  the 
chief  motive  for  a  rebellion  and  the  chief  hope  of  success  of  a  revolution, 
which  is  the  acquisition  of  the  customhouse  in  order  to  collect  taxes. 
And,  by  reason  of  our  intervention  between  Haiti  and  Santo  Domingo,  we 
have  been  able  to  prevent  a  war  between  those  two  countries,  growing  out 
of  a  dispute  over  a  boundary  line,  which  is  now  in  course  of  reference 
to  The  Hague.  So,  too,  as  between  Peru  and  Ecuador,  we  were  able, 
with  the  assistance  of  the  great  South  American  Republics — Brazil,  Ar- 
gentine and  Chile — to  stop  a  war  that  was  on  the  eve  of  breaking  out, 
a  war  that  involved  chiefly  a  question  of  honor,  and  both  countries  became 
willing  to  submit  it  to  negotiation  and  arbitration. 

We  have  always  believed  that  the  course  we  pursued  impressing 
Bolivia  and  Peru  to  settle  their  boundary  dispute  prevented  hostilities 
between  those  countries.  The  situation  was  most  acute  when  our  advice 
was  sought  by  both  countries.  We  have  been  able  to  bring  the  heads 
of  two  contending  factions  in  a  civil  war  in  Honduras  onto  the  deck  of 
an  American  vessel  and  there  negotiate  terms  which  have  led  to  permanent 
peace.  Now  Honduras  and  Nicaragua  ask  us  to  assist  them  in  paying 
their  debts  by  agreeing  in  case  of  a  default  to  accept  responsibility  for 
the  collection  of  the  revenues  and  to  make  settlements  in  accordance  with 
the  contracts  of  indebtedness.  These  two  treaties  are  pending  in  the 
Senate.  I  sincerely  hope  that  they  may  be  confirmed,  because  I  do  not 
know  any  other  power  that  is  so  useful  in  the  prevention  of  war  as  that 
which  enables  the  United  States  Government  to  collect  revenue  of  bank- 
rupt and  unstable  governments  and  to  apply  them  as  law  and  the  con- 
tracts made  require,  and  thus  to  put  the  governments  on  their  feet 
firmly.  It  has  worked  out  with  the  Republic  of  Santo  Domingo  in  a  most 
remarkable  way  to  the  benefit  of  that  country  in  the  cause  of  peace, 
and  we  can  be  certain  that  it  will  work  in  the  same  way  in  the  case  of 
Honduras  and  Nicaragua  if  only  the  Senate  will  agree  with  the  Executive 
and  confirm  the  treaties  made. 

I  have  merely  stated  to  you  what  has  been  accomplished  in  the 
present  administration  in  the  securing  of  peace  among  our  South  Amer- 
ican   and    Central    American    friends.      Treaties    of    arbitration    in    the 


21 

matter  of  claims  have  been  confirmed  between  them,  and  long  steps 
were  made  by  onr  predecessors  in  office  in  this  direction.  Indeed,  the 
pacification  of  Cuba  belongs  to  the  last  administration,  and  not  to  this. 
As  we  look  back,  therefore,  it  will  not  do  to  say  that  great  strides  have 
not  been  made  in  the  direction  of  universal  peace.  Of  course,  the  condition 
of  Mexico  may  well  make  us  hesitate  to  prophesy  too  strongly  as  to  the 
future,  but  all  the  lovers  of  mankind  hope  that  the  present  condition 
of  that  country  may  lead  to  the  establishment  of  a  firm  government,  and 
one  in  which  there  may  not  be  the  same  occasion  for  popular  unrest  as 
that  which  gave  rise  to  the  recent  collision. 

For  the  further  securing  of  peace,  and  as  an  example  to  all  the 
world  of  the  possibilities  of  the  use  of  arbitration,  we  have  invited  Eng- 
land and  France  and  Germany  to  make  a  treaty  for  the  arbitraLtion  of 
all  differences  of  an  international  character  that  in  their  nature  can  be 
adjudicated,  and  we  have  left  out  in  this  treaty  those  exceptions  which 
have  heretofore  always  been  excluded  from  arbitrable  controversies,  to 
wit,  questions  of  a  nation's  honor  and  of  its  vital  interest.  Of  course,  I 
can  not  say  with  positireness  that  these  treaties  will  all  be  made  and 
confirmed.  I  can  only  say  that  the  prospect  of  an  agreement  with  the 
Executive  of  one  of  the  countries  is  reasonably  sure,  and  we  have  every 
hope  as  to  the  other  two,  and  that  these  three  treaties  will  be  followed 
by  many  of  the  same  tenor  with  other  countries  if  the  original  three  are 
agreed  upon  and  confirmed. 

Objection  has  been  made  that  an  agreement  to  arbitrate  a  question 
of  national  honor  ought  not  to  be  entered  into  for  the  reason  that  when 
once  honor  is  affected  one  will  never  consent  to  have  the  question  arbi- 
trated, and  therefore  that  to  agree  to  do  so  in  advance  is  to  agrefe  to 
do  something  that  one  will  not  be  walling  to  do,  and  that  one  does  not 
intend  to  do,  and  therefore  it  savors  of  hypocrisy  and  ought  not  to  ba 
adopted  as  a  national  policy.  I  cannot  concede  the  premises  of  this 
argument.  I  look  upon  a  treaty  of  this  sort  as  a  self-denying  ordinance, 
as  a  self-restricting  obligation.  It  seems  to  be  of  the  same  character  as 
the  Constitution  which  the  people  as  a  whole  set  up  and  in  which  they 
impose  checks  upon  their  own  power  and  limitations  upon  the  method  by 
which  they  exercise  the  ultimate  sovereignty  w^hich  is  in  them.  It  is  not 
that  they  do  not  recognize  that  w^hen  the  temptation  comes  to  exercise 
arbitrary  power  they  will  not  feel  like  exercising  it,  but  it  is  that  they 
deliberately  impose  these  limitations  upon  their  own  action  with  the 
intention  that  they  shall  be  effective,  however  averse  they  may  be  to 
yield  to  them  when  the  occasion  arises  for  their  enforcement.  And  so 
in  agreeing  to  arbitrate  questions  of  national  honor  I  see  no  reason  why 
we  may  not  agree  to  do  so  and  that  we  may  not  have  moral  courage 
enough,  in  spite  of  our  impulse  to  the  contrary,  to  submit  such  questions 
to  an  impartial  tribunal  and  await  its  judgment. 

V  As  I  have  had  occasion  to  say  before,  there  was  a  time  when  ques- 
tions of  honor  could  only  be  settled  between  gentlemen  on  the  dueling 
field,  and  many  a  valuable  life  has  been  sacrificed  to  a  standard  of  ethics 
which  the  world  has  now  generally  discarded.  There  is  not  the  slightest 
reason  why  the  same  course  may  not  be  pursued  in  respect  to  questions 


22 

of  national  honor.  There  is  very  little  probability  as  bcLweeu  (Jrcal 
Britain  and  the  United  States  any  occasion  will  ever  arise  in  which 
war  would  be  possible.  The  same  thing  is  true  of  France  and  Germany. 
Why,  therefore,  it  is  asked,  is  it  necessary  to  make  a  treaty  of  arbitration 
to  avoid  wars  that  are  only  remotely  possible?  International  law  is 
made  up  of  international  customs,  traditions  and  the  formulation  of  in- 
ternational standards  of  ethics  in  treaties  between  civilized  governments. 
A  willingness  of  great  countries  like  those  of  England,  France,  Ger- 
many and  the  United  States  to  submit  all  their  differences,  even  of 
honor,  to  an  impartial  tribunal,  will  be  a  step  forward  in  the  cause  of 
peace  for  the  world  that  can  hardly  be  overestimated. 

I  am  not  a  wild  enthusiast  or  a  blind  optimist.  I  do  not  look 
forward  to  a  complete  restoration  of  peace  which  can  not  be  disturbed 
in  the  world  even  if  these  treaties  are  adopted.  Morality  of  nations 
improves  only  step  by  step,  and  so  the  making  and  confirming  of  these 
treaties  must  be  regarded  only  as  a  step,  but  a  very  long  step,  toward 
the  securing  of  peace  in  the  world.  To  you  men  who  have  seen  war,  to 
,you  who  know  its  horrors,  I  appeal  for  the  support  of  every  practical 
instrument  like  this  in  making  war  less  possible  and  peace  more  perma- 
nent. 


ADDKESS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  TO  THE  METHODIST  CHAUTAUQUA, 
AT  MOUNTAIN  LAKE  PARK,  MD.,  AUGUST  7,  1911. 

Ladjes  and  Gentlemen  :— I  have  snatched  a  day  out  of  my  official 
work  to  come  up  into  this  delightful  mountain  country  to  talk  to  you 
about  peace. 

I  am  not  a  blind  optimist  nor  a  wild  enthusiast  in  the  advocacy 
of  an  immediate  change  of  human  nature  as  it  exhibits  itself  in  the 
individual  man  or  in  the  aggregation  of  men  in  human  governments.  I 
realize  that  moral  changes  among  all  the  people  and  in  the  countries 
of  the  world  take  place  step  by  step,  and  that  progress  is  made  only 
by  moderate  advances  from  time  to  time.  I  know  that  in  the  last  30 
years  the  armaments  of  the  great  powers,  especially  in  the  main  means 
of  naval  attack  and  defense,  have  increased  enormously,  and  a  sur- 
face view  of  this  tendency  would  discourage  one  in  the  hope  that  we 
are  coming  nearer  to  an  era  of  universal  jDcace.  But  it  will  be  found 
on  study  that  while  preparations  for  war  have  been  greater  than  ever 
before,  actual  conflicts  are  much  less,  and  that  the  very  preparations, 
with  their  heavy  expense  and  with  the  prospect  of  bankrupting  losses 
in  actual  battle  and  campaigns,  have  operated  more  than  ever  before 
as  deterrent  of  war  and  promoting  peace. 

lAvice  in  public  addresses  I  expressed  the  view  that  arbitration 
as  a  means  of  settling  differences  between  the  nations  might  be  greatly 
extended  to  include  even  those  things  which  have  heretofore  been  ex- 
cluded, to  wit,  questions  of  honor  and  of  vital  interest.  The  eager- 
ness and  enthusiasm  with  which  those  tentative  and  informal  proposals 
were  received  by  the  great  men  of  England  of  both  parties  and  by 
statesmen  of  many  other  countries  is  perhaps  the  most  encouraging  cir- 


23 

cnmstance  in  a  century  for  those  who  longed  for  the  end  of  war.  It  was 
not  that  the  statesmen  and  the  nations  thus  welcoming-  the  proposal  in- 
tended to  disarm  or  to  stop  their  preparations  for  possible  war,  but  it 
was  that  they  welcomed  from  the  bottom  of  their  hearts  every  attempt 
to  substitute  for  war  a  peaceful  means  for  the  settlement  of  the  con- 
troversies between  nations,  with  the  hope  that  when  the  instrumentality 
shall  have  proved  itself  effective  as  a  substitute  for  war  then  the  heavy 
and  bankrupting  burdens  of  present  war  preparations  may  be  substan- 
tially reduced. 

The  tentative  proposals  to  which  I  have  referred  led  naturally  on 
to  negotiations  between  Great  Britain  and  this  country'  and  between 
France  and  this  country,  and  they  have  now  resulted  in  the  signing  of 
formal  treaties  of  what  may  be  called  "universal  arbitration."  They 
provide  that  every  question  of  a  justiciable  nature  shall  be  submitted  to 
a  tribunal  of  arbitration,  and  they  define  what  justiciable  means.  It  is 
any  issue  between  the  nations  that  can  be  properly  settled  upon  the 
principles  of  law  and  equity,  as  those  are  understood  in  law  and  in  in- 
ternational law.  There  are,  of  course,  questions  of  policy  with  respect 
to  which  each  nation  must  exercise  its  own  discretion,  and  in  doing 
so  is  entirely  within  its  legal  and  equitable  right,  and  however  its  action 
may  affect  the  other  nation  it  is  not  the  proper  subject  of  controversy. 
But  even  with  reference  to  such  questions,  it  is  proposed  to  submit 
those  to  an  impartial  commission,  in  which  both  countries  are  equally 
represented,  and  they  are  to  consider  the  matter  for  a  year  and  then 
decide,  first,  whether  the  matters  are  capable  of  arbitration,  and,  if 
not,  they  are  to  recommend  a  settlement.  If  the  controversies  are  found 
by  the  commission  to  be  capable  of  arbitration,  and  not  to  be  settled 
by  negotiations,  then  the  countries  are  bound  to  arbitrate  them  and 
accept  the  decision.  The  machinery  thus  provided  will  practically  dis- 
pose of  every  question  so  far  as  it  is  a  war-inducing  issue.  A  year's 
pandering  over  matters  we  can  be  sure  will  give  such  pause  to  the 
hot  feelings  of  either  nation  as  to  lead  to  a  sensible  and  peaceful  solu- 
tion. Indeed,  with  the  preliminary  commission  for  consideration  of 
the  issues  and  recommendations  for  their  proper  settlement,  the  treaty 
may  be  called  almost  a  treaty  not  only  to  avoid  war  but  even  to  avoid 
arbitration,  for  it  is  only  in  the  last  instance,  after  the  commission 
shall  have  failed  in  a  year's  time  to  suggest  a  satisfactory  solution,  that 
even  arbitration  is  to  be  resorted  to. 

In  the  old  treaty  of  arbitration  with  Great  Britain  the  subjects 
of  national  honor  and  of  vital  interest  were  excepted  from  those  which 
were  to  be  considered  by  a  tribunal  of  arbitration.  This  treaty  is 
made  for  the  purpose  of  eliminating  those  exceptions,  and  they  are  now 
subject  to  arbitration  within  the  limitations  of  the  treaty. 

The  treaty-making  power  in  the  United  States  is  vested  by  the  Con- 
stitution in  the  Executive  and  the  Senate,  it  being  required  that  each 
treaty  before  it  can  become  effective  shall  be  advised  and  assented  to 
by  the  Senate,  two-thirds  of  that  body  assenting.  Hence  binding  action 
with  respect  to  international  contracts,  like  those  for  arbitration,  can 
only   be    had    by    concurrent    action    of    the    Executive    and    the    Senate. 


24 

Therefore,  it  is  provided  in  these  new  arbitration  treaties  that  while  the 
united  States  and  Great  Britain  or  the  United  States  and  France  agree 
to  arbitrate  every  question  within  the  terms,  of  the  treaty,  the  special 
agreement  of  submission,  or  the  terms  of  submission,  as  they  are 
sometimes  called,  in  each  instance  arising  when  the  operation  of  the 
treaty  is  invoked,  shall  be  considered  and  acted  upon  by  the  same  au- 
thority which  entered  into  the  main  treaty  of  arbitration.  In  other 
words,  by  this  treaty,  if  it  is  ratified,  the  Executive  and  the  Senate,  rep- 
resenting the  United  States,  agree  to  settle  all  their  differences,  as  de- 
scribed in  the  treaty,  by  arbitration  or  through  a  commission. 

When  a  concrete  instance  of  a  cause  of  difference  or  controversy 
arises,  then  the  obligations  of  the  main  treaty  require  the  United  States, 
through  its  lawfully  constituted  authority,  to  wit,  the  Executive  and  the 
Senate,  to  make  the  requisite  agreement  and  submission  of  terms  by 
which  the  machinery  created  in  the  treaty  shall  be  set  in  motion,  the 
issue  defined,  and  the  question  decided.  Should  the  treaty  be  ratified, 
the  Senate,  exactly  as  the  Executive,  will  be  in  honor  bound  by  its 
obligations  in  good  faith  to  i>erform  the  offices  which  the  main  treaty 
provides  shall  be  performed  on  the  side  of  the  United  States,  and 
then  to  abide  the  result,  and  to  acquiesce,  or  in  so  far  as  may  be,  per- 
form and   execute  the  judgment  of  the  tribunal. 

Treaties  with  England  and  France  are  of  the  utmost  importance,  not 
in  the  actual  prevention  of  war  between  those  countries,  because  the 
danger  of  such  a  cataclysm  as  that  is,  thank  God,  most  remote,  but  they 
are  most  important  as  steps  toward  the  settlement  of  all  international 
controversies  between  all  countries  by  peaceable  means  and  by  arbitra- 
tion. The  fact  that  two  great  nations  like  Great  Britain  and  the  United 
States,  or  like  France  and  the  United  States,  should  be  willing  to  sub- 
mit all  controversies  to  a  peaceful  and  impartial  tribunal  can  not  but 
work  for  righteousness  among  the  nations,  and  for  a  willingness  on  their 
part  to  adopt  the  same  means  for  the  settlement  of  international  dis- 
putes. To  have  those  treaties  not  ratified,  therefore,  by  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States,  or  to  have  any  hesitation  and  discussion  of  a  serious 
character  in  respect  to  them  would  halt  the  movement  toward  general 
peace  which  has  made  substantial  advance  in  the  last  ten  years.  To 
secure  the  ratification  of  the  treaties,  therefore,  appeal  must  be  made 
to  the  moral  sense  of  the  nation ;  and  while  that  is  not  entirely  in  keep- 
ing of  the  churches,  certainly  they  may  exert  a  powerful  influence  in 
the  promotion  of  any  effective  instrumentality  to  secure  permanent  peace. 
Therefore,  I  invoke  your  aid  as  a  branch  of  the  great  Methodist  Church 
to  bring  all  the  influence  you  can  bring  to  secure  the  confirmation  of  the 
treaties  now  made,  and  of  those  which  may  l)e  made  hereafter  of  a  sim- 
ilar tenor  with  other  countries.  This  movement  has  attracted  the  at- 
tention not  only  of  England  and  France,  but  of  all  the  countries  of 
Europe  and  of  the  Orient.  It  is  not  too  much  to  hope  that  there  are 
a  number  of  others  who  will  be  willing  now  to  sign  the  same  kind  of 
treaties  as  those  already  made,  and  that  we  may  ultimately  have  a  net- 
work of  such  agreements,  making  long  strides  toward  universal  peace. 

On  Saturday  last  the  Senate  not  only  made  public  the  treaties  now 


25 

negotiated  by  the  United  States  with  Great  Britain  and  France  for  uni- 
versal arbitration,  but  they  also  made  public  treaties  between  the  United 
States  and  Nicaragua  and  between  the  United  States  and  Honduras. 
One  of  the  encouraging  and  marked  tendencies  in  int^^rnational  matters 
is  the  increasing  sense  of  responsibility  that  powerful  nations  are 
acquiring  in  respect  to  bad  government  and  human  suffering  under  bad 
government  in  other  countries  and  nations.  In  our  own  country  this 
is  evidenced  by  the  Spanish  War,  which  was  undertaken  for  the  benefit 
of  improving  the  condition  of  the  people  of  Cuba.  It  is  evidenced  by 
the  time  and  money  and  effort  which  have  been  spent  for  the  last  ten 
years  in  improving  the  Philippines.  It  is  evidenced  by  the  intervention 
in  the  last  administration  to  prevent  a  revolution  in  Cuba.  It  is 
evidenced  by  the  wonderfully  successful  intervention  by  Theodore  Eoose- 
velt  as  President  of  the  United  States  in  securing  peace  between  Russia 
and  Japan.  It  is  evidenced  by  the  treaty  made  in  the  last  adminis- 
tration with  Santo  Domingo,  by  which  we  agreed  to  appoint  agents  to 
collect  the  revenue  of  Santo  Domingo  and  to  secure  their  application  to 
the  wiping  out  of  a  national  debt  which  was  growing  beyond  any  hope 
of  liquidation.  One  revolution  succeeded  another  in  that  unfortunate 
country,  and  its  history  was  nothing  but  one  of  blood  and  battle,  and 
its  people  suffered  intense  misery  from  the  stagnation  and  halting  of  all 
progress  that  continual  wars  compelled. 

In  respect  to  the  Central  American  Eepublics  we  occupy  a  ^- 
culiar  position.  By  the  assertion  of  the  Monroe  doctrine  we  decline  to 
allow  any  European  country  to  acquire  further  territory  in  this  hemi- 
sphere at  the  expense  of  any  of  the  existing  Republics,  and  as  against 
such  an  invasion  the  Monroe  doctrine  puts  us  in  the  attitude  of,  in  effect, 
guaranteeing  their  integrity.  When,  therefore,  European  nations,  in  the 
enforcement  of  the  debts  due  to  their  subjects,  threaten  measures  of  force 
against  any  Central  American  Republic  which  may  lead  to  an  appropri- 
ation of  its  territory  we  can  not  >e  indifferent,  and  we  must  inter- 
vene to  prevent  the  logical  outcome  of  such  forceful  measures.  But  how 
can  we  act  as  guardian  for  those  Republics  in  their  dealings  with  Euro- 
pean nations  and  their  subjects  unless  we  assume  some  responsibility 
to  enable  those  countries  to  liquidate  their  indebtedness  and  readjust  it 
on  an  equitable  basis?  It  is  not  necessary  in  doing  so  for  us  to  as- 
!<ume  any  financial  responsibility.  It  is  not  necessary  for  us  in  doing 
so  to  use  our  Army  and  Navy  for  the  purpose.  All  we  have  to  do  is 
1o  agree  to  do  what  we  did  in  Santo  Domingo,  or  less,  to  wit,  to  agree 
to  appoint  agents  to  collect  the  revenues  of  these  Republics  when  de- 
fault shall  ocnir  and  apply  the  money  in  accordance  with  the  contracts. 
That  is  a  very  slight  responsibility  for  us  to  meet  compared  with  the 
power  we  assert  under  the  Monroe  doctrine,  to  wit,  to  forcibly  exclude 
all  European  countries  from  intervention  and  appropriation  of  the  soil 
of  these  Republics.  There  is  no  issue  before  the  Senate  so  acute  in 
respect  to  the  cause  of  peace  as  the  confirmation  of  those  Central  Amer- 
ican treaties.  If  those  Republics  are  loaded  with  debts,  equitable  and  in- 
equitable, by  our  aid,  extended  in  the  way  I  have  described,  through  those 


26 

treaties,   they   have    an   opportunity   to   liquidate    all    their   indebtedness 
on  an  equitable  basis. 

The  very  existence  of  the  treaty  and  our  obligation  to  take  charge 
of  the  custom  houses  in  case  of  a  default  has  proven  in  the  instance 
of  Santo  Domingo  to  be  a  most  pow^erful  means  of  preventing  sedition, 
rebellion,  local  disorders,  and  war.  Why  should  we  withhold  our  aid, 
extended  once  to  Santo  Domingo,  to  these  other  countries  equally  de- 
serving and  equally  under  our  guardianship?  Is  it  not  better  thus  to 
anticipate  trouble  and  ward  it  oS  by  mere  civil  arrangements  that  in- 
volve but  little  burden  than  to  wait  until  war  follows,  until  European 
nations  undertake  a  forcible  collection  of  their  debts,  and  when  we 
have  come  face  to  face  with  an  European  controversy  and  continuous 
wars  in  the  Central  American  Republics  themselves.  I  submit  to  you, 
my  friends,  that  while  I  admit  the  greater  importance  of  the  universal 
treaties  of  arbitration  in  the  long  i*un,  and  as  affecting  the  world  at 
large,  yet  in  respect  of  American  interests — in  respect  of  peace  in  this 
hemisphere — they  are  not  equal  in  importance  to  the  confirmation  of 
these  Central  American  treaties.  The  Senate  has  properly  published  them 
to  the  world  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  people  to  examine  them,  to 
study  them,  and  to  express  their  opinion  upon  them,  and  I  venture  to 
hope  that  popular  consideration  of  them  will  lead  to  such  em^phatic  aji- 
proval  that  the  requisite  majority  in  the  Senate  may  give  the  treaties 
life  and  Honduras  and  Nicaragua  and  other  similarly  situated  countries 
the  relief  they  so  desperately  need.  In  the  halt  of  business  and  of  all 
progress  that  their  impossible  financial  condition  now  imposes  uxoon 
them,  the  poor  people  of  these  Republics  are  suffering  from  want  and 
starvation,  though  living  in  a  country  of  vast  resources,  which,  under  the 
blessing  of  peace  and  the  investment  of  capital,  could  be  made  to  yield 
comfort  and  happiness  to  every  soul  of  them. 


ADDRESS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  METHODIST  CONFERENCE, 
OCEAN  GROVE,  N.  J.,  AUGUST  15.  1911. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — I  have  come  here  to  this  great  gathering 
at  the  invitation  of  your  executive  committee,  and  at  the  special  instance 
of  Gov.  Murphy  and  Congressman  Andrus.  I  am  glad  to  have  the 
privilege  of  meeting  your  distinguished  governor  of  New  Jersey,  Gov. 
Wilson,  and  to  receive  from  him  the  welcome  of  the  State. 

These  are  busy  days  in  Washington,  and  it  has  cost  me  something 
in  the  matter  of  time  and  effort  to  accept  your  hospitable  invitation.  I 
could  not,  however,  forego  the  opportunity  of  coming  to  talk  to  you  on 
a  subject  in  which  I  know  that  both  you  and  I  are  very  deeply  interested. 
I  mean  the  cause  of  the  promotion  of  peace  among  the  nations. 

Moral  progress,  of  course,  begins  with  the  individual,  and  unless  you 
can  find  it  there  we  are  not  likely  to  find  it  in  any  group  of  individuals, 
or  in  the  millions  of  individuals  that  make  a  state.  Hence  we  must 
expect  that  the  code  of  morals  that  governs  the  association  of  individuals 
is  a  higher  one  than  that  which  obtains  in  the  relations  between  nations. 


27 

Still,  while  progress  among  individuals  means  progress  at  a  slower  rate 
among  nations  in  this  regard,  it  is  inevitable  that  the  method  of  settling 
differences  and  controversies  between  individuals  should  furnish  a  prece- 
dent and  a  suggestion  for  a  similar  method  of  settling  controversies 
between  nations. 

There  was  a  time  in  the  English  law  when  litigants  wiight  demand 
and  have  a  settlement  of  a  controversy  by  what  was  called  "wager  of 
battle,"  but  as  civilization  progressed,  wager  of  battle  fell  into  disuse, 
and  civil  courts  furnished  the  means  by  which  men  were  able  to  live 
with  each  other,  adjust  their  controversies,  and  continue  members  of  the 
same  society.  As  between  nations,  the  wager  of  battle  has  not  been 
laid  aside,  and  we  are  still  making  treaties  and  arrangements  by  which 
the  method  of  conducting  war  shall  be  limited  to  what  is  thought  to 
be  a"  civilized  manner  of  conducting  it,  and  unnecessary  cruelties  are 
forbidden  and  eliminated. 

Now  the  question  which  the  good  people  of  all  countries  are  agitating 
is  whether  we  can  not  find  something  satisfactory  which  can  be  sub- 
stituted for  war  as  a  means  of  settling  international  controversies.  The 
closer  acquaintance  of  nations  with  each  other,  the  greater  community 
of  interest  among  them,  the  increase  in  the  family  feeling  between  them, 
all"  press  toward  an  avoidance  of  war  and  a  settlement  of  controversies 
otherwise.  It  is  this  real  increase  in  the  actual  brotherhood  of  man 
and  of  the  interest  of  the  citizen  or  subject  of  one  country  in  the  citizen 
or  subject  of  another,  that  has  strengthened  the  yearning  on  the  part 
of  all  peoples  for  some  sort  of  a  temple  of  justice  in  which  kings  and 
nations  may  be  parties,  and  headings  and  judgments  may  take  the  place 
of  battles  and  capitulations.  This  feeling  has  been  rendered  stronger 
and  stronger  by  the  churches.  The  missionaries  who  have  been  sent  out 
by  civilized  nations  into  uncivilized  portions  of  the  globe  have  carried 
the  doctrine  of  the  brotherhood  of  man  into  actual  deeds  of  mercy  and 
assistance.  These  missionaries  have  been* nothing  but  the  forerunners 
of  civilization  in  the  parts  which  they  have  visited,  and  the  function 
that  they  have  played  in  the  spread  of  civilization,  everyone  familiar 
with  the  Orient  and  the  non-Christian  parts  of  the  world  can  testify. 

The  same  spirit  which  prompts  the  sending  of  missionaries  into 
distant  parts  of  the  globe  tq  aid  the  less  progressive  inhabitants  of  those 
sections  is  the  spirit  which  is  roused  to  enthusiasm  and  energetic  action 
in  the  promotion  of  effective  means  for  delaying  war  or  making  it  less 
frequent  and  of  promoting  peace. 

There  are  a  few  things  that  ought  to  be  said  with  reference  to  the 
spirit  in  which  we  approach  plains  for  the  settlement  of  controversies 
without  resort  to  war.  In  the  first  place,  if  we  insist  upon  a  plan  in 
which  we  are  always  likely  to  win  the  controversy,  the  plan  will  not 
probably  approve  itself  to  the  person  or  nation  with  whom  we  propose 
to  make  the  agreement.  If  we  are  afraid  to  submit  to  an  impartial 
tribunal,  lest  we  may  lose  our  case,  then  we  would  better  go  back  to  war 
as  the  only  means  of  settling  international  controversies  when  negotia- 
tion fails.  When  w^e  enter  into  an  arbitration,  or  an  agreement  to  sub- 
mit our  differences  to  an  impartial  tribunal,  we  must  "play  the  game." 


28 

We  must  be  willing  to  lose,  as  we  are  anxious  to  win.  Therefore,  it 
seems  to  me  of  much  importance  that  in  considering  what  ought  to  be 
done,  and  what  can  be  done  in  constituting  an  international  court  for 
the  settlement  of  international  differences,  the  parties  should  come  to 
feel  that  the  court  is  for  the  purpose  of  settling,  one  way  or  the  other, 
real  international  differences,  the  settlement  of  which  will  be  a  great 
disappointment  to  one  or  the  other  of  the  parties.  It  is  generally  quite 
impossible  for  a  court  to  decide  a  case  so  that  both  parties  shall  like 
the  decision,  and  a  court  to  decide  between  nations  cannot  find  it  any 
more  easy  than  a  domestic  court  to  do  this.  We  cannot  make  omelets 
without  breaking  eggs ;  we  cannot  submit  international  questions  to  arbi- 
tration without  the  prospect  of  losing,  and  if  arbitration  is  to  be  effected, 
and  is  to  cover  the  ground  that  shall  really  promote  the  cause  of  peace 
and  prevent  war,  it  must  cover  questions  of  the  utmost  interest  to  both 
countries,  and  therefore  the  loss  of  one  country  in  the  contest  must  be 
of  course  a  serious  matter  to  that  country ;  and  when  it  comes  into  an 
agreement  for  arbitration  it  must  be  willing  to  face  the  disappointment 
that  comes  from  a  serious  loss  thus  imposed  by  an  arbitral  decision.  If 
the  subject  of  arbitration  is  merely  for  discussion  in  peace  societies,  and 
is  only  for  the  purpose  of  furnishing  a  text  for  an  address  like  that  I 
am  delivering  to  you,  and  if  the  result  is  not  to  mean  real  victory  for 
one  party  and  real  defeat  for  the  other,  certainly  the  time  of  diplomatic 
officers,  who  have  many  other  things  to  do,  ought  not  to  be  wasted  on  it. 

I  am  very  serious  in  my  advocacy  of  arbitration  as  a  means  of  set- 
tling international  disputes,  and  I  believe  that  you  are.  I  am  willing  to 
abide  an  adverse  decision  in  a  court  of  arbitration  for  my  own  country, 
even  though  it  may  impose  a  serious  loss  upon  her,  if  the  system  of 
arbitration  is  to  be  made  permanent  and  the  court  is  of  such  a  character 
that  when  I  have  just  cause  I  can  count  on  receiving  a  just  judgment. 
I  emphasize  these  things  because  as  between  individuals  in  society  we 
differentiate  with  clearness  between  the  strength  and  the  weakness  of 
a  man's  claim  in  'his  contest  with  others  in  civil  society ;  but  when  we 
come  to  discuss  national  affairs  and  the  interest  of  our  country  we  are 
all  prone  to  take  up  the  cry  "For  my  country  always !  May  she  always 
be  right ;  but,  whether  right  or  wrong,  for  my  country !"  Now,  where 
war  is  the  only  method  of  arbitrament,  it  is  impracticable  for  one  citizen 
to  set  up  against  the  draft  that  may  be  made  upon  him  by  his  country 
to  sustain  her  in  a  war  that  her  cause  is  not  a  just  one ;  but  supposing 
war  to  be  out  of  the  question,  we  should  have  no  objection  to  submit- 
ting our  claims  to  a  just  court,  and  we  ought  to  abide  in  peace  its 
judgment  that  we  do  not  have  a  just  cause,  however  hurtful  it  may  be 
to  our  national  pride  and  however  prejudicial  to  our  national  pecuniary 
or  material  interest.  In  other  words,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  if  we  are 
going  into  the  arbitration  game,  if  I  may  call  it  such,  we  must  play  it 
through  to  the  end,  and  we  must  take  our  hard  knocks  with  equanimity, 
as  we  expect  others  to  take  theirs,  with  the  hope  and  knowledge  that 
the  disadvantage  that  may  accrue  to  each  party  can  never  equal  the 
horrible  losses,  the  cruelty  and  the  wickedness  of  war. 

We  have  made  progress  among  the  nations  in  the  cause  of  peace. 


29 

At  the  instance  of  the  Emperor  of  Russia  The  Hague  conferences  were 
held  and  The  Hague  tribunal  established.  This  was,  of  course,  with 
exceptions  and  conditions  and  provisions,  all  of  which  limit  the  kinds 
of  cases  that  go  into  that  court,  and  so  we  can  not  say  that  there  is  a 
general  provision  for  the  arbitration  of  all  questions  between  nations, 
but  there  is  the  machinery,  there  is  a  basis  upon  which  future  action 
can  be  taken,  and  we  may  look  forward  with  reasonable  hope  to  an 
enlargement  of  the  office  of  The  Hague  court  until  after  a  while  it  shall 
be  a  general  international  court,  in  which  all  nations  shall  be  willing 
to  put  their  claims  and  their  defenses  for  consideration  and  decision. 
Heretofore  agreements  for  abitration  generally  excepted  questions  of 
national  honor  and  of  vital  interest.  It  has  always  seemed  to  me  that 
these  exceptions  were  so  broad  that  they  excluded  a  great  many  im- 
portant questions  that  might  just  as  well  be  arbitrated  as  any  other, 
and  so  I  suggested  last  year  that  I  would  be  willing  to  take  the  respon- 
sibility as  President  of  initiating  a  treaty  with  one  or  more  important 
governments  for  the  arbitration  of  all  international  differences,  even 
though  they  did  include  those  of  national  honor  and  of  vital  interest. 
That  was  a  public  declaration  and  it  was  soon  publicly  accepted  both  by 
England  and  France.  Negotiations  were  carried  on  with  a  full  knowl- 
edge of  both  countries,  and  after  an  agreement  was  reached  a  synopsis 
of  it  was  issued  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  the  nations  concerned  and 
the  world  generally  know  the  substance  of  the  treaties.  After  some 
months  in  the  preparation  of  the  exact  language  it  was  submitted  to  the 
Senate. 

The  treaties  provide  that  all  questions  that  are  justiciable  arising 
between  England  and  this  country  and  France  and  this  country  shall  be 
arbitrated  and  submitted  either  to  The  Hague  or  some  other  international 
court.  That  the  question  shall  be  justiciable  as  defined  in  the  first 
clause  of  the  treaty — first,  it  must  be  between  the  two  countries  to  the 
treaty;  second,  it  must  relate  to  an  international  matter;  third,  both 
parties  must  be  concerned  in  the  matter ;  fourth,  the  concern  of  the  com- 
plaining nation  must  be  based  upon  a  claim  of  right  under  a  treaty  or 
otherwise  ;  fifth,  the  difference  must  be  capable  of  being  adjusted  by  the 
application  of  the  rules  of  law  and  equity,  domestic  or  international.  If 
all  these  elements  are  found  to  exist  in  respect  to  the  difference  between 
the  two  nations,  then  it  is  an  arbitral  difference  within  the  meaning  of 
Article  I  of  the  treaty.  If  the  two  powers  cannot  agree  that  a  specific 
difference  between  them  is  arbitrable,  then  provision  is  made  for  the 
appointment  of  a  commission  to  consist  of  three  representatives  of  one 
power  and  three  representatives  of  the  other,  who  are  to  meet  and  con- 
sider what  the  difference  is,  whether  it  can  be  ended  by  negotiation,  to 
recommend  a  solution,  if  possible,  and  if  not,  then  to  determine  whether 
the  issue  is  arbitrable,  and  if  five-sixths  of  the  commission — that  is,  three 
of  one  side  and  two  of  the  other — shall  agree  that  it  is  arbitrable,  then 
it  is  to  be  submitted  under  the  form  prepared  in  the  treaty  to  arbitration 
under  a  special  agreement,  which,  in  the  case  of  the  United  States,  is  to 
be  signed  by  the  Executive  and  concurred  in  by  the  Senate. 

I  would  have  been  willing  myself  to  provide  that  all  differences  of 


80 

opinion  on  international  matters  should  be  submitted  to  a  court  of 
arbitration  for  its  decision,  and  to  have  left  it  to  the  court  itself  to 
say  whether  the  difference  arising  could  be  properly  settled  by  arbitra- 
tion. In  other  words,  I  believe  in  arbitration  to  a  j)oint  that  I  am  wilJing 
to  arbitrate  anything  in  which  I  believe  I  have  a  good  cause,  and  if 
I  don't  believe  I  have  a  good  cause  I  wish  to  give  it  up  in  advance 
of  arbitration.  But  public  opinion  is  perhaps  not  so  far  advanced  as 
this,  and  therefore  the  commission  plan  was  devised  by  which  the  ques- 
tion of  the  arbitrable  character  of  the  controversy  was  left  to  a  joint 
high  commission,  consisting  of  three  representatives  of  each  party,  it 
being  supposed  that  neither  party  would  feel  itself  in  danger  of  an 
unjust  decision  as  to  the  arbitrable  character  of  a  difference  in  a  tribunal 
in  which  three  of  the  persons  were  their  own  fellow  citizens  appointed 
by  their  Executive,  and  in  our  case  with  the  consent  of  the  Senate. 

Having  completed  the  two  treaties  with  England  and  France,  I  sub- 
mitted them  to  the  Senate  for  their  advice  and  consent  to  my  ratification 
of  them.  Of  course  I  could  have  called  the  Senate  in  advance  of  the 
making  of  the  treaties,  and  it  would  not  have  been  a  departure  from 
the  proper  method  for  me  to  have  learned  in  advance  the  action  the 
Senate  mig'ht  take  ujion  such  a  question.  But  I  had  myself  publicly 
declared  my  willingness  to  initiate  such  a  treaty,  and  so  far  as  my 
authority  went  to  carry  it  to  a  successful  negotiation.  It  did  not  seem 
wise,  therefore,  to  submit  the  matter  to  the  Senate  until  after  it  had 
taken  definite  form,  and  until  after  we  had  found  that  the  other  coun- 
tries were  willing  to  join  us  in  such  treaties.  Now,  I  freely  concede  that 
il  is  within  the  power  of  the  Senate,  in  its  function  of  advising  and  con- 
senting to  the  treaties,  either  to  reject  them  or  to  amend  them.  They 
do  not  amend  the  treaties,  strictly  speaking,  they  merely  continue  the 
negotiation  by  suggesting  another  form  to  be  submitted  to  the  other 
party  to  the  treaty,  and  that  I  understand  is  what  the  Foreign  Relations 
Committee  of  the  Senate  has  done,  to.  wit,  it  has  stricken  out  the  third 
clause,  vesting  the  commission  of  six  commissionei^i,  three  from  each 
side,  with  the  power  to  determine  whether  differences  are  arbitrable 
within  the  meaning  of  the  first  section,  and  to  bind  both  countries  when 
the  vote  is  five  out  of  six  in  the  commission  to  the  acceptance  of  a  judg- 
ment by  arbitration  upon  such  issue.  I  think  this  is  a  verj^  important 
part  of  the  treaty.  I  think  it  is  one  of  those  pledges  of  good  faitli  in 
entering  into  the  treaty  that  is  essential  to  take  it  a  step  forward  in  the 
adjustment  of  international  controversies.  When  we  agree  that  we  will 
submit  all  justiciable  controversies  to  the  judgment  of  an  arbitration, 
and  decline  to  allow  anybody  to  decide  what  is  justiciable  except  our- 
selves, we  give  little  sanction  or  pledge  in  advance  of  our  willingness 
and  anxiety  to  settle  all  possible  controversies  by  arbitration.  The 
treaty  then  is  likelj-^  to  become  a  mere  expression  of  a  desire  to  arbitrate 
where  we  think  we  can  arbitrate  without  losing,  and  where  our  material 
or  other  interests  will  not  suffer  by  defeat,  or  where  the  case  is  so  clear 
that  we  are  certain  to  win.  At  least  this  is  the  opportunity  it  affords 
when   we   reserve   to   ourselves   the   right   to   decide   what  we   regard   as 


81 

justiciable  when  the  case  arises.     If  this  is  to  be  a  real  advance,  then 
we  must  be  willing-  to  risk  something-  in  making-  the  treaty. 

But  it  is  said  that  we  are  asking  the  Senate,  in  consenting  to  the 
ratification  of  these  treaties,  to  abdicate  some  of  its  functions.  I 
confess  I  follow  this  claim  with  very  little  sympathy  or  a>cquiescence. 
The  Senate  is  part  of  the  treaty-making-  power  of  the  counliry.  A  treaty 
is  a  contract.  It  is  an  agreement  by  which,  if  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  is  a  party,  those  who  represent  it  may  bind  it  to  a  certain 
course  of  action  in  the  future.  That  is  involved  in  the  power  to  make  a 
treaty  itself.  A  contract — a  treaty — is  a  stipulation  as  to  the  future 
conduct  of  those  who  enter  into  it.  Now,  if  w^e  have  power  to  enter  into>^ 
arbitration,  we  have  the  power  to  agree  to  enter  into  arbitration^  under 
conditions  that  are  described  in  the  treaty/ and  as  we  have  the  right  to 
leave  the  interests  of  the  country  to  a  judgment  of  the  court,  to  which 
it  is  submitted  by  agreement,  we  certainly  have  the  right  to  submit  to 
that  court  to  decide  whether  the  particular  instance  and  difference  which 
has  arisen,  or  shall  arise  in  the  future,  is  within  the  description  of  the 
treaty  and  of  the  obligation  which  we  entered  into  in  the  treaty.  To 
say  that  this  is  an  abdication  of  the  functions  of  the  Senate  is  to  say 
that  it  is  not  the  function  of  the  Senate  to  make  an  agreement  at  all 
w^hich  shall  bind  the  Government.  I  have  no  desire  to  minimize  in  the 
slightest  degree  the  importance  of  the  Senate  as  part  of  the  treaty- 
making  power.  I  have  no  desire  to  minimize  its  importance  in  the 
framework  of  the  Government  which  the  drafters  of  the  Constitution 
founded.  It  furnishes  a  second  legislative  Chamber  of  Members,  with 
a  six  years'  tenure,  which  insures  a  proper  check  in  the  sober  considera- 
tion of  legislation  sent  over  to  it  by  the  House  of  Eepresentatives,  and 
it  properly  divides  with  the  Executive  the  power  and  responsibility  of 
shaping  our  international  relations.  But  when  the  prerogatives  of  the 
Senate  are  spoken  of,  the  term  "prerogative"  does  not  make  the  power 
which  it  intends  the  Senate  has  any  more  sacred  than  the  power  of  the 
Executive  in  resipect  to  the  same  subject  matter.  If  the  Executive  and 
the  Senate  acting  together  may  make  a  contract  of  submission  to  arbi- 
tration, there  is  very  little  limitation  upon  the  scope  of  the  questions 
which  they  have  power  to  submit.  The  treaty-making  power  is  a  very 
•broad  one.  and  it  is  not  straining  it  in  the  slightest  to  include  within 
it  the  power  to  make  a  treaty  of  arbitration,  by  Avhich  a  certain  class 
of  questions  described  in  the  treaty  are  to  be  submitted  to  arbitration, 
and  by  which  the  power  shall  be  committed  to  a  tribunal  of  arbitration 
to  decide  whether  future  instances  arising  are  within  the  class  described 
in  the  treaty  or  not. 

I  had  hoped  that  the  treaties,  when  submitted  to  the  Senate,  would 
meet  with  early  ratifi.cation  and  concurrence.  In  this  I  have  been  dis- 
appointed, but  I  do  not  wish  to  be  put  in  an  attitude  of  expressing  im- 
patience at  a  proper  deliberation  by  the  Senate  on  matters  of  so  great 
importance  as  this.  On  the  contrary,  I  urge  such  delay  and  deliberation, 
because  I  am  convinced  that  longer  consideration  will  satisfy  the  Mem- 
bers of  the  Senate  that  the  chief  objection  which  seems  to  be  made  to 
the  third  clause  of  the  treaty  has  no  weight  in  it  whatever.     Of  course, 


32 

there     Ih    a     dinVrCllCe     between     llif     nr.nninril,     (liiTclcd     |,(»     wIicIIh  r     tllO 

Seiittki  littw  thfi  power  to  mibmll.  I.(»  n  ■  mimmh  .  .i..ii  ih.-  (|iMv(ti(.ii  wii.i.h.-r  a 
tUflforeiico  \n  itrbltrftble  or  not,  Jiml  ihr  policy  (»!'  doin;'  ..>.  i  (..ni.  ,« 
myself  iinitble  to  find  any  JiiHt  iirf^-dinenl,  upon  whii  i,  ,.  .i.  i.,i  m  iii« 
power  of  Ihe  Hemit^^  f(jr  thl«  piirpoN^  enn  be  inx<'d. 

'Vhv  pidley  of  the  nialter  prewenls  a  Momrwlml,  dilTncnl.  iMMtM-  and 
fruvl<e«  ine  reenr  to  the  Mobjeet  nuitier  of  my  rennu'kH  eiu'll<M'  In  IIiIm 
addresw.  If  we  lire  Iti  earnest  In  favor  of  arbll.raiion,  and  ho[)e  to  make 
H  tt  iiieatiB  of  dlMpenwlnju'  with  wnr  and  of  «ettllii^  real  eoiitrovernle*, 
thpn  w«  rtiimt  be  willing  to  rink  (hd'eat  in  arbitration,  and  on  lmp«)rl.a.nt 
matkM'M,  iin  we  may  eariieMtly  hope  for  utieeeMM,  and  I.  lor  (»iir.  in  my 
profound  deMliwi  to  (Ind  woine  ineHiiw  (»f  avoiding  l\w  awful  ('<)m(,  and  Iioii«»im 
of  war,  am  reinly  to  run  Iho  rlMk  iind  j/o  fully  to  Mie  polnl.  <>\'  Midnnil  l.inf^ 
linporljinl.  Inlcrnal  lonnl  dllVci'cnrrM  |.o  n  Ifilmnal  wlicrc  wr  may  win  or 
lo^^e. 

I  venture  tliUM,  my  frlcndM,  l,(»  point  oul.  III.  .hir-n  n..  .  Muil.  imiy 
arise  belwr<Mi  the  lOxeeidivc  and  I, he  Hrnale  in  llo  .  milhr.  'i'luil  an 
a|,freemenl  nniy  Ix*  immicIkmI.  of  cmirMe,  1  Mlneerely  liopf.  'I'lic  pow«  r;;  of 
the  Heiiale.  aw  well  aw  thoMe  of  tln^  ICxeeutlve,  nre  all  derlv«Ml  from  Mie 
people.  Neither  1m  more  ^sacred  than  the  other.  Aw  1  have  already  naid, 
I  am  tlu^  IiinI.  perwon  to  mlnlml/e  tlu'  Impoi'taiuM'  of  the  Hrnate'M  retain- 
ing Hm  eon«l  lliitlonal  powiwM,  and  of  Hm  refuMln^'  to  al»dica.t<i  any  function 
which  that  liiMtrumcnt  ^'IveM  It.  I  lliiid^  ItN  M<MiMltlv<M«eH«  In  rc^nrd  ((» 
it«  power  onj^ht  to  be  rempeeted  4i.nd  not  erltlel/cd  or  umdi-  iii-ht  of, 
bwmiiw«  If  the  balance  of  power  In  the  ConHtltuthni  l.ctw. .  n  ii..  i;\.cutlvo 
tttid  the  Henatc  and  the  IIoiimc  <d'  liN'prcMcntatlveM  and  IIm-  |iidi«i;iiy  Ih  to 
1mi  maintained,  one  ol'  (lie  elil.-l'  liojien  of  II.M  mainleimncc  Tm-!  in  tli<« 
a.s»Mertlon  of  each  braiadi  of  what  \\h  powern  arc  mui  ii  i.  in  ml  to  nlmte 
any  of  them.  HUH,  If  the  Henale,  (tv  any  Memix  i  -i  it.  ;;lionld  think 
that  ItM  powers  are  ^-reafer  or  lesw  than  they  in-  ,  umI  IIm'  limitatiinm 
they  InslMt^  upon  Interfere  with  pr(»^reNH  toward  piinr,  ,,\  niiy  other  ^reat 
mitioniil  <n-  intei-nji  I  ioiui  I  policy,  the  <pientiou  whether  they  ar<«  ri^ht  or 
not  iuumI  idliuuilely  be  rercrred  back  t(»  the  people  whoM«<  repi'c<u'ntat.lveN 
t  h<'  MembefM  of  tin*  Henatc  are,  for  we  nil.  aM  I  sny,  ha\c  derived  cnir 
powers  frcnn  tin-  peopU*.  as  the  ultimate  Mmirec  of  power,  nnd  in  .  i  e 
of  dlsaj^rccmcnl  I  he  proper  place  for  diseussliMi  of  such  an  Issur  i  l.<  i..r<i 
the  peophs  The  eaiise  Is  wulllclenlly  f^-reat  to  warrant  tin*  straining-  of 
elT(M't  to  Mccure  treaties  like  those  which  make  for  International  pciuM*. 
If  I  inn  wionf  in  my  judi^tnent.  iind  I  do  not  claim  infallibility,  and 
know  that'  the  cnt^huMiasm  of  tlie  caiiMc  may  M(anetinM-M  warp  jud^;ui<nt, 
I  am  quite  wllllnj^  to  abide  the  ultimate  JudK'meid  of  the  peopl<- ;  l>nt  I 
deem  It  my  duty,  until  I  shaH  reeelvo  an  adverse  decisifm,  t(»  urg-e  my 
views  ujxm  the  Henatc,  ami  to  inv(d<e  the  atlcntlon  of  the  people  to  tJiese 
quest  ions  immI  sueh  exprcMMion  of  opinion  by  them  as  shall  inlltn'nce  a  rati- 
ileatlon  of  the  treaties  as  they  were  signed. 


33 


ADDRESS  OF  PKESTDENT  TAFT  TO  THE  GRAND  ARMY  OF  THE  RE- 
PUBLIC, AT  CONVENTION  HALL,  ROCIIESTEU,  N.  Y.,  AUGUST 
23,  1911. 

Men  of  the  (tRand  Army  :-— ^I  thank  yon  for  this  invitation  to  be 
present  at  your  annual  encampment.  I  was  present  at  yonr  annnal  meet- 
ing- in  Toledo  three  j-ears  ago,  and  I  am  always  g-lad,  when  opportunity 
offers,  to  testify  to  my  high  appreciation  of  yonr  body  as  a  civic  organi- 
zation of  the  greatest  nsefnlness.  I  say  "civic  organization,"  fot-  it 
certainly  is  not  now  a  militay  organization,  althongh  it  was  organized 
to  keep  in  fresh  and  sacred  memory  the  deeds  of  the  greatest  military 
organization  that  probably  ever  existed — the  Grand  Army  of  the  Re- 
public as  it  was  in  1865. 

I  congratulates  you  that  there  are  no  politics  in  the  Grand  Army ; 
that  you  are  a  non-partisan  body,  and  that  each  man  votes  his  senti- 
ments without  fear  or  the  influence  of  his  fellows.  I  am  glad  to  know 
that  important  as  the  body  is,  widespread  as  is  its  membership  through 
the  country,  no  suggestions  of  outside  influence  are  permitted  to  have 
weight  in  your  councils  or  the  selection  of  your  leaders. 

I  hope  you  may  continue  to  have  meetings  as  long  as  there  are 
two  survivors  of  your  host,  and  then  that,  in  the  Sons  of  Veterans,  may 
be  continued  the  tfaditions  of  courage,  patriotism,  and  self-sacrifice, 
liberty,  fraternity,  and  loyality,  that  mark  your  present  organization. 

It  is  noAv  half  a  century  since  the  conflict  of  arms  began  in  which 
one-half  of  this  country  was  arrayed  against  the  other  half.  In  this 
annual  gathering  of  the  survivors  of  the  men  who  in  that  contest  fought 
to  preserve  the  Union  and  to  unite  again  the  contending  forces,  one 
becomes  necessarily  reminiscent  of  the  conditions  that  prevailetl  before 
the  war  began,  and  in  the  retrospect  marks  the  wonderful  changes  in 
our  national  conditions  which  this  50  years  have  witnessed. 

How  dark  must  have  been  the  outlook  of  any  lover  of  his  country, 
whether  he  lived  in  the  North  or  in  the  South,  who  understood  or 
measured  the  depth  of  the  conviction  of  the  North  as  to  the  necessity  for 
maintaining  the  Union  without  slavery,  or  the  conviction  of  the  South 
as  to  the  importance  of  sustaining  slavery  as  an  economic  institution 
and  State  rights  as  a  principle  of  constitutional  construction! 

For  years  the  cleavage  had  manifested  itself  in  Congress,  in  pol- 
itics, and  in  society,  and  Lincoln's  declaration  that  the  country  could 
not  remain  half  free  and  half  slave  crystalized  the  sentiment  of  those 
who  saw  clearly  the  inevitable  tendency  of  public  opinion  in  the  North 
and  in  the  South.  How  discouraged  must  have  been  the  philosophers 
of  those  days  who  sought  for  some  peaceful  solution,  or  a  solution  by 
arms  which  would  not  so  rend  the  country  as  to  destroy  the  possi- 
bility of  its  great  future!  The  problem  seemed  insoluble,  and  yet  we 
have  worked  it  out.  It  was  done  by  a  tremendous  war,  a  conflict 
that  developed  an  unsuspected  strength  on  both  sides — an  energy  and 
courage  in  the  North  and  a  brave  power  of  resistance  to  the  uttermost 
in  the  South.  It  is  pointed  out  that  the  resources  of  the  North  ex- 
ceeded those  of  the  South.     That  is  doubtless  true,  but  the  problem  that 


34 

the  North  had  was  affirmative ;  the  problem  that  the  S'&uth  had  was 
negative.  The  problem  of  the  North  was  "capture,  tranqnillization,  and 
reunion ;"  the  problem  of  the  South  was  "resistance"  only.  What  states- 
man, what  prophet  in  the  dark  days  of  the  fifties  and  1860  and  1861  could 
look  forward  from  a  nation  of  30,000,000,  rent  by  this  fundamental  cause 
of  difference  and  driven  into  bloody  contest,  to  a  nation  to-day  of 
90,000,000,  with  a  prosperity,  a  wealth  per  capita,  and  a  condition  of 
comfort  for  the  individual,  and  an  equality  of  opportunity  that  has  never 
been  equaled  in  the  world?  When  we  contemx^late  what  we  have  lived 
through  and  what  has  been  accomplished,  it  ought  to  encourage  us  to 
feel  that  the  problems  before  us  are  slight  in  comparison  with  those 
we  have  solved ;  and  here,  in  the  presence  of  the  survivors  of  those 
men  who  saved  the  country  and  helped  to  solve  that  problem  50  years 
ago,  I  would  draw  a  lesson  that,  it  seems  to  me,  is  of  the  utmost  use- 
fulness in  times  like  these.  Our  very  prosperity  and  the  accumulation 
of  our  wealth  have  brought  other  problems,  elusive  and  difficult  in  their 
settlement,  and  have  prompted  a  higher  civic  ambition  with  reference 
to  the  condition  of  the  individual  and  his  equality  of  opportunity,  and 
with  reference  to  use  of  wealth  by  its  owners  and  restrictions  upon 
methods  of  use  unduly  oppressive  to  competitors  and  to  the  public  at 
large. 

These  higher  aims  for  the  betterment  of  society,  these  new  evils 
growing  out  of  the  concentration  of  wealth,  and  these  combinations 
which,  properly  controlled,  are  a  great  good  in  the  reduction  of  the  cost 
of  production,  have  invited  from  the  active-minded  of  to-day  suggestions 
of  reform  that  are  so  extreme  that  the  medicine  to  many  of  us  seems 
worse  than  the  disease.  Those  who  are  charged  with  the  responsibility 
and  sobered  with  the  difficulties  find  themselves  in  the  middle  of  the 
road  resisting  the  tendency  to  socialism  on  the  one  hand  and  the  in- 
ertia of  reactionary  contentment  with  present  evils  and  ambition  for 
greater  concentration  of  financial  power  on  the  other ;  but  we  are 
gradually  solving  the  problem.  The  present  does  not  bring  difficulties 
as  great  as  you  had  to  meet  and  overcome  in  '61.  It  may  be  a  longer 
fight,  because  it  will  not  involve  violence  or  the  shedding  of  blood,  but 
it  must  and  will  be  solved  peacefully  and  by  the  earnest  effort  of  the 
level-headed,  the  practical,  and  the  courageous  among  us,  and  by  re- 
ducing the  influence  of  the  demagogue  and  theoretical  extremists  on  the 
one  hand  and  the  reactionary  influence  of  combinations  of  wealth  on 
politics  and  progress  on  the  other.  Its  solution  will  be  consistent  with 
the  preservation  of  our  ancient  institutions  of  personal  liberty  and 
private  property  under  the  Constitution.  The  message  that  you  bear, 
with  your  experience  and  your  success,  to  those  of  us  struggling 
now  with  the  problem  is  that,  however  dark  at  times  the  situation 
seems,  so  long  as  we  retain  in  this  country  a  God-fearing,  sober,  intelli- 
gent people,  we  can  count  in  the  long  run  upon  their  working  out 
safely  and  sanely  the  problems  set  before  them,  no  matter  how  many 
mistakes  in  the  form  of  nostrums  they  may  be  led  into  by  the  spec- 
iousness  of  half-baked  theories  of  progress,  no  matter  how  often  they 


35 

may  have  been  defeated  in  their  purpose  by  the  temporary  siietes::^ 
of  undue  influence  of  concentrated  wealth. 

Such  anniversaries  as  these  of  the  heroes  that  survived  the  awful 
conflict  of  1861  to  1865  are  useful  in  many  ways.  In  the  first  place, 
they  must  give  to  3^ou  who  participate  an  intense  joy  in  the  quicken- 
ing of  the  bond  of  common  recollection  and  association  formed  in 
those  days  of  strife  of  the  i)ast,  when  yoa  all  were  exposed  to  the  dan- 
gers of  the  battlefield,  and  only  part  lived  to  tell  the  tale.  In  the 
next  place,  such  a  union  and  demonstration  furnish  a  lesson  to  the  youth 
of  the  country,  and  prompt  them  to  a  willingness  to  enlist  in  her  sup- 
port whenever  new  exigencies  shall  arise  calling  for  the  sacrifice ;  and, 
finally,  it  revives  through  the  nation  at  large  the  useful  recollection 
of  the  difficulties  through  which  the  country  has  come,  and  over  which 
it  has  triumphed,  and  gives  new  courage  and  new  hope  to  those  who 
are  struggling  with  present  difficulties.  This  thought  has  come  to  me 
time  and  time  again  since  I  have  had  the  responsibility  of  the  Presi- 
dency ;  and  when  there  seemed  troubles  and  burdens  that  were  hard  to 
bear  my  mind  has  reverted  to  those  which  Lincoln  carried,  and  in  com- 
parison with  his  sad  mental  struggles,  mine  have  seemed  boyish  and 
of  little  weight. 

But  I  did  not  come  here,  my  friends,  to  discuss  the  state  of  the 
nation  at  large,  and  these  remarks  of  mine  are  made  only  as  an  intro- 
duction to  the  subject  of  arbitration  and  peace. 

You  are  here  to  commemorate  the  fact  of  war  and  the  sacrifice  that 
war  made  necessary  and  the  success  that  attended  your  struggles  in 
battle.  But  you  are  not  here  to  praise  war  or  to  advocate  its  contin- 
uance. You  are  the  first  to  admit  that  the  awful  horrors  that  are 
inevitable  in  war  should  be  avoided  if  possible.  You  know  better  than 
those  of  us  who  have  had  no  experience  how  dreadful  it  is,  what  cruel- 
tie?  it  involves,  what  painful  sacrifices  on  the  part  of  mother,  and  wife, 
and  daughter  it  entails.  You  can  not  be  blind  to  the  devilish  instincts 
it  excites,  to  the  corruption  and  demoralization  that  follow  in  its 
train.  These  things  you  know  by  actual  experience,  and  this  it  is  that 
makes  you  an  audience  to  whom  appeals  in  behalf  of  progress  toward 
universal  peace  can  be  properly  made. 

Of  course  every  sensible  man  knows  that  if  no  other  means  is  fur- 
nished for  the  settlement  of  international  controversies  but  negotia- 
tion, the  time  is  likely  to  come  when  that  means  will  fail,  and  then  war 
will  ensue.  The  nations  of  the  globe,  especially  those  in  close  proxirmty 
to  each  other,  are  armed  to  the  teeth  and  with  the  most  expensive 
modern  armament,  to  be  ready,  when  the  possibility  of  other  settlement 
shall  have  passed,  to  defend  themselves  and  injure  their  opponents.  The 
cost  of  modern  armament  is  so  great  and  the  cataclysmic  effect  of 
modern  wars  is  so  pronounced  that  I  believe  them  to  be  less  frequent 
than  in  the  past,  and  in  this  way  the  preparations  for  war  have  pos- 
sibly reduced  its  probability  rather  than  increased  it.  But  we  can  be 
confident  that  w^ar  will  not  disappear  unless  some  method  is  furnished 
which  shall  satisfactorily  settle  the  differences  that  must  in  the  nature 
of  things  arise  between  the  nations  of  the  world.     Of  course,  between 


36 

individuals  in  a  community  the  differences  which  arise  are  settled  in 
courts.  We  have  now  treaties  for  arbitration  which  are  made  for  the 
purpose  of  settling  controversies  that  arise  between  us  and  other  coun- 
tries, but  there  are  exceptions  in  the  description  of  the  differences 
that  are  to  be  arbitrated  under  those  treaties  which  exclude  questions 
of  honor  and  vital  interest.  I  need  not  stop  to  discuss  the  meaning  of 
these  terms  except  to  say  that  they  are  wide  enough  to  exclude  from 
the  effect  of  the  treaties  many  questions  that  may  arise  between  na- 
tions which  are  more  likely  to  produce  war  than  the  questions  included 
in  the  treaties.  I  ventured  last  year  and  the  year  before  in  one  or 
two  public  addresses  to  express  the  opinion  that  there  was  no  reason 
why  such  questions  could  not  be  arbitrated  as  other  questions.  This 
expression  at  length  awakened  a  cordial  response  both  in  England 
and  in  France,  and  it  has  led  to  the  negotiation  of  two  treaties — one 
with  England  and  one  with  France.  Those  treaties  have  gone  to  the 
Senate  and  are  now  under  consideration  in  that  body.  The  majority 
of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  has  reported  in  favor  of  the 
amendment  to  the  treaties,  and  a  minority  in  favor  of  their  adoption  as 
they  are,  with  a  possible  suggestion  in  the  act  of  ratification  as  to 
their  construction.  I  do  not  come  before  you  in  opposition  to  the  Senate, 
and  I  do  not  wish  to  criticise  the  majority  of  the  committee  that  has 
reported  an  amendment.  I  am  only  anxious  to  promote  as  full  a  public 
discussion  of  the  questions  now  arising  in  respect  to  the  confirmation 
of  the  treaties  as  possible,  because  I  feel  confident  that  a  public  dis- 
cussion of  the  matter,  followed  by  popular  expression,  will  aid  much 
in  the  clarification  of  the  subject  in  the  Senate  itself,  and  will  lead  to 
convincing  a  majority  of  that  body,  and  perhaps  all,  of  the  wisdom 
of  the  prompt  ratification  of  the  treaties  as  they  were  signed.  I  am 
especially  anxious  to  emphasize  the  fact  that  I  do  not  wish  to  be  put 
in  antagonism  to  the  Senate.  I  am  one  of  those  who  greatly  admire 
the  plan  of  government  devised  by  our  forefathers  in  the  Constitution. 
I  think  that  one  of  the  most  admirable  features  in  that  framework 
is  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  with  its  various  functions.  I  should 
be  the  last,  therefore,  to  seek  to  deprive  the  Senate  of  any  of  the 
powers  given  to  it  by  the  Constitution.  If  after  full  consideration  and 
calm  discussion  the  Senate  shall  take  a  different  course  from  the  one 
I  urge,  of  course,  like  a  law-abiding  citizen,  I  shall  cheerfully  acquiesce 
in  their  judgment.  But  while  this  is  my  attitude,  I  do  not  think  that 
it  -is  improper  for  me,  until  the  matter  is  settled,  to  urge  ratification, 
to  meet  as  best  I  can  the  arguments  advanced  against  it,  and  respect- 
fully to  question  a  limitation  upon  the  power  of  the  Senate,  which 
is  made  the  basis  for  the  contention  that  the  Senate  can  not  properly 
ratify  and  confirm  these  treaties.  In  other  words,  I  am  contending  for 
larger  powers  in  the  making  of  these  treaties  on  the  part  of  the  Senate 
than  some  Members  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign 
Relations  are  willing  to  admit. 

The  first  clause  of  the  treaties  binds  the  parties  to  submit  either  to 
The  Hague  or  some  other  court  of  arbitration  "all  justiciable  differ- 
epces  hereafter  arising"   between  them,   and  provides  that  the  submi^- 


37 

sion  of  the  question,  when  it  arises,  shall  be  by  special  agreement  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  and  by  England  or  France  in  accordance  with  their  consti- 
tutional provisions.  The  second  article  provides. for  the  organization  of 
a  joint  high  commission,  to  consist  of  three  of  the  subjects  or  citi- 
zens of  one  of  the  countries  and  three  of  the  other.  At  the  request  of 
either  party  any  controversy  between  them  may  be  referred  to  this 
commission  for  investigation  and  recommendation  before  it  has  been  sub- 
mitted to  arbitration.  The  reference  may  be  postponed  until  one  year 
after  the  formal  request  has  been  made,  in  order  to  afford  an  opportunity 
for  diplomatic  discussion  and  adjustment  of  the  questions.  The  report 
of  the  joint  high  commission  is  to  be  advisory  and  not  conclusive  on 
either  party  in  respect  of  all  the  questions  they  pass  upon,  except  one. 
That  is  where  there  is  a  difference  between  the  parties  as  to  whether 
the  question  at  issue  is  subject  to  arbitration  under  the  first  clause 
or  not.  If  so,  and  five  out  of  six  members  of  the  commission  decide  that 
it  is  justiciable  and  so  arbitrable  under  the  first  clause,  then  both  par- 
ties are  bound  by  that  decision. 

I  have  thus  stated  the  nub  of  the  treaties.  Tfeey  have  been  signed, 
and  nothing  awaits  their  going  into  force  except  the  ratification  of  the 
Senate.  I  do  not  contend  that  if  we  make  treaties  war  is  to  disappear. 
I  do  not  contend  that  war  will  be  absolutely  impossible  between  the 
countries  that  make  the  treaties,  because  treaties  have  been  violated, 
and  you  can  not  always  foresee  what  a  country  in  convulsions  of  fury 
may  do ;  but  I  do  contend  that  such  treaties  as  these  make  war  much 
less  probable  between  the  countries,  and  that  as  an  example  to  other 
countries  they  suggest  the  wisdom  of  similar  treaties,  and  thus  furikish 
hope  of  general  progress  toward  a  condition  in  which  war  is  generally 
less  probable. 

The  evil  of  war  and  what  follows  in  its  train  I  need  not  dwell  upi')n. 
The  slightest  acquaintance  with  history  makes  that  known.  We  could 
not  have  a  higher  object  than  the  adoption  of  any  proper  means  which 
lessens  the  chance  of  war. 

Those  who  have  objected  to  the  treaty  have  first  suggested  that  the 
organization  of  the  joint  high  commission,  with  the  power  given  to 
either  party  to  secure  a  refei*ence  of  a  controversy  to  it,  for  considera- 
tion for  a  year,  makes  it  a  breeder  of  war.  I  confess  myself  unable  to 
follow  the  force  of  such  an  argument.  Delay  always  cools  the  blood  of 
individuals  and  nations.  Discussion  somewhat  drawn  out  postpones  the 
probability  of  violence  and  force.  The  level  headed  on  both  sides  find 
in  postponement  of  an  issue  and  a  crisis  the  best  instrument  for  reducing 
the  heat  of  a  quarrel  or  the  resentment  at  a  fancied  insult.  Nothing 
so  subdues  the  truculent  spirit  as  the  strain  of  long  waiting  to  give 
it  ratification. 

But  the  main  and  chief  objection,  if  I  understand  it,  to  the  treaty 
is  that  the  Senate  can  not  agree  to  abide  the  judgment  of  a  joint  high 
commission  like  this  as  to  w^hether  a  difference  between  the  two  coun- 
tries comes  under  the  description  contained  in  the  first  clause,  and  is, 
therefore,  arbitrable.     By  doing  so,  it  is   said  the  Senate  will  in  some 


38 

way  part  with  tlic  power  conferred  upon  it  by  the  Constitution,  and 
which  it  is  forbidden  to  deleg-ate.  It  is  clear  that  the  Senate  may  agree 
to  arbitrate  a  class  of  (juestions  in  advance  of  their  arising  in  tlie 
fnture.  2\t  least,  the  present  Senate  can  hardly  dispute  this,  for  it  has 
already  made  many  treaties  in  which  it  hais  agreed  to  arbitrate  all 
questions  except  certain  classes  which  are  specified.  If  it  has  the  right 
to  agree  to  arbitration  in  the  future  upon  any  class  of  questions,  and 
be  bound  by  such  an  agreement,  it  is  impossible  to  escape  the  conclusion 
that  it  may  be  bound  to  arbitrate  the  question  of  the  construction  of  a 
treaty  in  the  future,  for  such  a  question  is  one  of  the  most  frequent  in 
actual  practice  that  arises  in  international  controversies.  Now  the  issue 
whether  a  question  arising  is  within  the  class  described  in  the  first  sec- 
tion of  the  treaty  is  a  question  arising-  in  the  construction  of  the  treaty. 
In  what  respect,  therefore,  is  the  power  of  the  Senate  limited  to  make 
an  agreement  on  this  subject? 

Of  course  the  question  of  power  is  one  thing  and  the  wisdom  of 
exercising  it  is  another.  If  the  Senate  thinks  it  unwise  to  consent  to 
submit  such  a  thing  to  arbitration,  then  the  argument  is  upon  the 
wisdom.  Why  is  it  unwise?  Here  are  three  men  selected  from  one 
country  and  three  from  another  to  constitute  this  commission.  They 
devote  themselves  to  the  investigation  of  the  question.  Is  it  likely  that 
two  out  of  three  Americans  or  two  out  of  three  Englishmen  or  two  out 
of  three  Frenchmen  will  consent  that  a  question  is  arbitrable  as  against 
its  own  country  if  in  fact  it  is  not  clearly  so?  How  much  real  risk, 
therefore,  is  run  by  the  Senate  in  consenting  that  five-sixths  of  the 
commission  may  decide  a  question  of  construction  of  the  treaty?  The 
importance  of  retaining  the  provision  is,  however,  to  give  a  pledge  and 
sanction  of  the  good  faith  of  both  parties  in  entering  into  the  treaty 
and  the  real  hope  that  it  may  avoid  war.  It  is  a  self-denying  arrange- 
ment. It  assumes  that  the  countries  may  be  anxious  to  avoid  arbitration, 
or  that  one  of  them  may  be,  and  it  leaves  this  question  to  another  tri- 
bunal than  the  country  itself,  to  another  judge  than  one  of  the  parties, 
to  decide.  If  this  is  not  done,  and  it  is  left  to  the  parties  to  decide 
whether  any  issue  comes  under  the  first  clause,  the  treaty  is  not  very 
binding,  because  a  strong  motive  present  in  the  mind  of  either  party  to 
avoid  arbitration  of  the  particular  issue  will  prompt  every  plausible 
objection  by  it  that  the  matter  is  not  arbitrable,  and  thus  will  prove  fatal 
to  the  operation  of  the  treaty  upon  the  question.  In  other  words,  the 
treaty  would  become,  in  effect,  then,  only  a  general  statement  in  favor 
of  arbitration  as  a  means  of  settling  difficulties  without  effective  obliga- 
tion. 

We  wish  to  make  progress — real  progress — we  wish  to  enter  into 
a  contract  that  binds  us  to  something.  We  can  not  expect  to  win  all 
our  arbitrations;  we  can  not  expect  to  have  an  arbitration  when  we 
would  and  reject  it  when  we  would  not,  just  because  we  think  we  might 
lose.  If  the  arbitration  method  is  to  become  useful  at  all,  it  must  involve 
obligations  by  both  parties  to  submit  questions  when  they  would  rather 
not  submit  them.  To  make  a  contract  under  Avhich  we  are  able  to  do 
as  we  like  in  the  future  is  to  make  no  contract  at  all.     It  is  a  mere 


39 

declaration  of  present  willingness,  with  such  a  reservation  as  would 
enable  us  to  follow  our  future  desires  as  we  will.  It  is  this  submission 
to  another  tribunal  of  the  definite  question  whether  the  first  clause 
includes  the  issue  which  has  arisen  and  the  agreement  to  abide  the 
judgment  that  gives  substance  and  weight  to  the  treaty. 

Norway  and  Sweden  have  entered  into  an  agreement  to  arbitrate 
certain  questions,  with  certain  exceptions,  and  they  have  agreed  that 
the  Board  of  Arbitration  may  decide  conclusively  for  the  parties  whether 
the  question  arising  comes  within  the  exceptions  or  the  general  rule 
contained  in  the  treaty  itself.  I  would  be  willing  to  go  that  far,  and 
to  leave  to  the  Board  of  Arbitration  itself  the  question  whether  the 
issue  arising  is  within  the  first  clause  of  the  treaty.  We  find  its  com- 
plete analogy  in  the  power  of  domestic  courts  to  determine  whether  the 
question  brought  before  it  is  within  its  own  jurisdiction. 

Here,  lest  there  might  be  sensitiveness  in  giving  to  the  arbirators 
this  full  power  to  determine  their  own  jurisdiction,  another  tribunal, 
consisting  only  of  persons  selected  from  the  countries  involved,  was 
created  to  determine  the  question,  and  a  vote  of  five  out  of  six  was 
required  before  the'  decision  should  be  binding.  It  is  a  concession  to  the 
spirit  of  the  objection  made  in  the  Senate  to  the  third  clause — the  spirit 
that  hesitates  to  make  a  real  agreement  to  arbitrate  anything  in  the 
future  lest  in  some  way  we  may  lose  a  controversy.  I  am  bound  to  admit 
that  submission  to  a  commission  constituted  as  this  one  is,  is  not  the 
greatest  step  that  could  be  taken,  but  it  is  a  step  in  the  right  direction, 
toward  a  settlement  of  questions  under  a  contract  that  has  some  binding 
force  and  sanction,  and  does  not  depend  for  its  usefulness  entirely  upon 
the  concurring  willingness  in  the  future  of  parties  to  abide  by  their  own 
agreement. 

These  treaties,  if  ratified,  will  do  much  toward  establishing  arbitra- 
tion as  the  means  of  settling  all  international  difficulties.  It  would  be 
a  great  misfortune  if  we  were  not  able  to  avail  ourselves  of  the  opportu- 
nity which  offers.  I  do  not  doubt  we  shall  be  able  to  negotiate  with 
many  other  countries  similar  treaties,  if  these  are  confirmed  by  the 
Senate. 

Objection  has  been  made  to  the  agreement  of  this  treaty  that  under 
the  first  section  it  might  be  claimed  that  we  would  be  called  upon  to 
submit  to  arbitration  the  Monroe  doctrine,  our  right  to  exclude  foreign 
peoples  from  our  shores,  or  the  question  of  the  validity  of  the  southern 
bonds  issued  in  reconstruction  days.  These  suggestions  have  nothing  in 
them.  The  question  of  the  Monroe  policy  is  not  a  justiciable  one.  It  is 
one  of  purely  governmental  policy  which  we  have  followed  for  a  centurj', 
and  which  the  countries  of  Eui'ope  have  generally  acquiesced  in.  With 
respect  to  this  very  matter,  Sir  Edward  Grey,  the  secretary  of  state  for 
foreign  affairs,  has  announced  publicly  that  the  Monroe  policy  could 
not  be  disputed  by  them  under  this  treaty,  and  would  not  come  within 
its  terms. 

With  respect  to  the  exclusion  of  immigrants,  it  is  a  principle  of 
international  law  that  each  country  may  admit  of  the  persons  who  come 
to  its  shores  those  whom  it  chooses  to  have  admitted  and  may  reject  the 


40 

others.  This  is  a  subject  of  domestic  policy  which  no  foreig-n  country 
can  interfere  in,  unless  provisions  in  a  treaty  affect  the  question,  and 
then  it  may  become  properly  a  question  of  treaty  construction  and 
oblig-ation.     In  the  absence  of  a  treaty,  it  is  not  an  arbitrable  question. 

With  reference  to  the  right  to  involve  the  United  States  in  a  con- 
troversy over  the  obligation  of  certain  Southern  States  to  pay  bonds 
issued  during  reconstruction,  which  have  been  repudiated,  it  is  sufficient 
to  say  that  such  a  question  would  not  come  within  the  treaty,  for  the 
treaty  only  affects  "cases  hereafter  arising,"  and  the  cases  of  the  southern 
bonds  all  arose  years  ago.  These  instances  are  cited  to  show  the  lack 
of  wisdom  in  entering  into  the  treaty.  I  refer  to  them  to  show  that  we 
would  not  be  embarrassed  in  the  slightest  in  respect  to  them  by  this 
treaty,  because  by  its  terms  they  are  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the 
arbitration  it  provides. 

I  think  I  have  considered  all  the  objections  that  are  seriously  made. 
I  have  treated  them  in  a  summary  manner,  but  I  hope  my  treatment  of 
them  is  sufficient  to  set  your  minds  working  on  the  issue  which  is  now 
pending  with  respect  to  the  treaty,  and  that  you  may  be  convinced  that 
the  objections  are  not  well  taken  and  that  the  treaty  ought  to  be  ratified. 

To  the  men  who  have  known  to  their  cost  the  horrors  and  sacrifices 
of  war,  to  the  men  to  whom  the  country  is  under  a  debt  of  the  deepest 
gratitude  for  saving  the  Union — the  men  who  were  victors  in  war  and 
yet  were  the  first  to  make  possible  the  union  of  hearts  between  the  blue 
and  the  gray — to  the  men  whose  greatest  leader  expressed  the  national 
yearning  in  his  words,  "Let  us  have  peace,"  I  appeal  to  promote  the  cause 
of  peace  by  approving  these  treaties  and  urging  their  ratification. 


ADDRESS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  SIXTH  CONVENTION  OF 
THE  WORLD'S  SUNDAY  SCHOOL  ASSOCIATION,  AT  CONVENTION 
HALL,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C,  MAY  19,  1910. 

Mr.  President,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  of  the  World's  Sunday  School 
Association  : — One  remark  of  your  presiding  officer  sank  so  deeply  into 
my  mind  that  I  must  comment  upon  it  at  once.  I  hops  ha  will  con- 
tinue to  pray  for  the  President  of  the  United  States.  Mj^  experience  is 
that  it  is  needed. 

It  is  a  great  honor  to  welcome  to  Washington,  the  City  Beautiful,  a 
world's  convention  at  a  time  when  the  city  is  most  beautiful.  From  all 
parts  of  the  world  we  welcome  here  the  representatives  of  one  of  the 
two  or  three  great  instrumentalities  for  making  the  world  better,  for 
making  it  more  moral,  and  for  making  it  more  religious. 

Youth  is  the  time  to  inculcate.  Our  public  school  education  is  only 
secular  teaching,  with  the  teaching  of  morality  in  general.  But  that  is 
not  enough.  There  are  those,  whose  opinions  I  highly  respect,  w^ho  feel 
as  if  it  were  dangerous  to  have  education  at  all  unless  associated  with 
religious  education;  but  we  in  our  country,  under  our  system,  have  not 
found   it  practical   to   have   public   education   associated   w4th   distinctly 


41 

religious  education,  and  therefore,  we  feel,  even  more  than  in  countries 
where  that  is  possible,  the  necessity  for  Sunday  School  education  and  for 
Sunday  Schools.  No  matter  what  views  are  taken  of  gt^neral  education, 
we  all  agree — Protestant,  Catholic  and  Jew  alike — that  Sunday  School 
education  is  absolutely  necessary  to  secure  moral  uplift  and  religious 
spirit. 

The  invention  of  the  Sunday  School  is  accredited  to  Robert  Eaikes 
in  1780  or  1781.  That  there  had  been  something  equivalent  to  the  Sunday 
School,  in  one  form  or  another,  for  centuries  before  that,  is  doubtless 
true ;  and  I  think  history  shows  that  we  knew  something  of  the  Sunday 
School  in  this  country  before  that  time,  but  I  think  it  was  Mr,  Kaikes 
who  pressed  upon  his  countrymen  the  necessity  for  the  use  of  this  instru- 
mentality in  forwarding  religion.  At  a  time  when  he  brought  it  forward, 
the  Sunday  School  had  to  supply  some  of  the  uses  of  the  great  public 
schools  of  to-day;  but  it  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  impulse  which  he 
gave  to  religiovis  thought  and  religious  fervor  in  those  days  had  much 
to  do  with  adding  to  the  revival  of  religion  under  the  inspiration  of  the 
evangelists  and  of  Wesley  and  others  who  made  that  revival  in  the 
eighteenth  century  so  noteworthy. 

Adam  Smith,  Hannah  Moore  and  Rowland  Hill,  the  man  who  gave 
us  the  post  office  in  most  of  its  useful  features,  introduced  the  Sunday 
School  into  London.  It  shewed  that  Mr.  Hill's  mind  was  not  only  occu- 
pied with  one  means  of  spreading  education,  but  that  it  also  took  up  the 
subject  of  religious  education  as  well.  There  were,  as  there  always  will 
be,  in  the  spreading  of  any  useful  movement,  conscientious  members  of 
the  church  who  were  opposed  to  the  Sunday  School,  but  they  have  dis- 
appeared. • 

The  spread  of  the  Sunday  School,  the  organization  of  the  Sunday 
School  Union  in  1785,  and  the  counting  of  heads  a  few  years  later, 
showed  200,000  pupils  in  the  schools.  In  this  country  the  Sunday  School 
Union  and  the  spread  of  the  Sunday  School  movement  seems  to  have 
been  even  wider  and  more  thorough  than  in  any  other  part  of  the  world 
— one  million  teachers  and  eight  million  pupils  against  one  million 
teachers  and  eight  and  a  half  million  pupils  in  the  rest  of  the  world. 
Those  figures  are  figures  of  some  years  ago,  and  I  doubt  not  they  may 
be  added  to  by  millions  with  reference  to  the  pupils,  and  by  hundreds 
of  thousands  with  reference  to  the  teachers.  A  movement  of  such 
strength  is  one  which  we  ought  to  welcome  in  every  community,  and 
testify  to  the  respect  we  have  for  the  good  which  it  is  doing. 

It  seems  a  work  of  supererogation  to  talk  about  the  advantage  of 
beginning  moral  and  religious  instruction  with  the  earliest  youth.  We 
do  not  have  to  convince  each  other  that  that  which  we  learn  in  youth 
lasts  longest  with  us. 

There  is  another  great  advantage  connected  with  the  Sunday  School 
teaching,  namely,  that  it  commands  without  money  and  without  price 
one-eighth  as  many  teachers  as  there  are  pupils,  who  give  their  time  to 
this  work.  I  want  to  say  that  I  believe  the  influence  of  the  Sunday  School 
upon  the  teachers  is  in  some  respects  even  more  beneficial  than  its  influ- 
ence upon  the  pupils.    A  boy  or  girl  is  a  boy  or  a  girl.    They  take  in  moral 


42 

lessons  and  they  occasionally  forget  them.  They  learn  their  Bible  verses 
and  some  retain  them,  but  many  lose  them.  But  the  education  that  the 
teacher  gets  in  preparing  himself  or  herself  to  teach  another,  the  respon- 
sibility that  he  assumes  in  developing  the  religious  character  of  another, 
and  the  necessary  depth  and  fervor  of  spirit  which  he  must  develop,  if 
he  is  not  a  hypocrite,  in  trying  to  lead  others,  necessarily  elevates  him 
in  a  way  which  would  be  otherwise  impossible. 

And  now,  my  friends,"  I  welcome  you  to  Washington.  I  welcome  you 
here  with  the  hope  that  this  convention,  as  the  many  others  that  you 
have  had,  may  bring  about  a  comparison  of  methods  of  teaching,  an  im- 
provement in  the  methods  of  teaching,  and  an  improvement  in  the  way  to 
awaken  the  hearts  and  souls  of  your  little  pupils,  and  that  you  may  carry 
away  from  Washington  the  feeling  that  this  meeting  has  done  something 
to  make  progress  in  the  great  work  of  which  you  are  guardians  through- 
out the  world. 

The  reference  of  your  distinguished  president  to  the  death  of  the 
late  King,  and  the  feeling  of  mourning  which  it  awakened  on  both  sides 
of  the  ocean,  bring  to  mind  how  much  such  a  world's  convention  as  this 
means  in  the  perpetuation  of  the  peace  of  nations  and  the  love  of  each 
for  the  other. 


ADDEESS  OF  PEESIDENT  TAFT  AT  CITY  HALL  PARK,  FRESNO, 
CALIFORNIA,  AT  A  UNION  RELIGIOUS  SERVICE,  OCTOBER  10, 
1909. 

Mb.  Mayor,  Clergymen  of  Fresno,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen,  Citizens  of 
Fresno: — It  has  not  been  my  part,  until  I  began  this  trip,  in  religious 
exercises  to  do  other  than  form  one  of  the  audience ;  but  I  have  found 
it  impossible,  under  the  friendly  urgency  of  ministers  of  the  gospel  who 
occasionally  desire  a  lay  substitute,  to  keep  from  taking  their  places  and 
attempting  to  preach  a  sermon. 

I  want  to  say,  first,  with  respect  to  this  audience,  that  the  presence 
of  the  veterans  of  the  Civil  War  is  always  a  great  inspiration  to  higher 
thoughts,  to  higher  moral  standards  and  to  everything  that  goes  to  make 
our  country  worth  living  for. 

I  had  discussed  the  question  with  some  of  my  companions  as  to 
what  subject  I  might  select  for  this  Sunday  afternoon  as  one  taking  part 
in  religious  exercises,  and  with  the  true  California  spirit,  it  was  sug- 
gested that  I  ought  to  point  out  to  Californians  how  much  they  have  to 
thank  God  for.  And  i)erhaps  if  I  took  that  subject  I  could  get  more 
earnest  sympathy  and  hearing  than  some  other  texts  more  useful.  There 
is  a  text,  however,  I  don't  know  that  I  can  quote  it  exactly,  but  to  these 
gentlemen  before  me  who  have  taken  part  in  the  battles  of  the  war,  it 
will  come  by  reason  of  its  comparison  with  great  significacce,  that  "He 
who  conquers  himself  is  greater  than  he  who  taketh  a  city."  Now  the 
home  application  to  the  individual  of  that  text  I  need  hardly  point  out. 
The  struggles  that  a  man  who  is  burdened  by  heredity  or  otherwise  with 


43 

the  taste  for  strong  drink,  who  overcomes  it,  though  it  chases  him  nighfc 
and  day — those  of  us  who  are  not  so  afflicted  may  yet  appreciate  and 
honor  in  the  man  who  having  yielded  many  times  has  finally  struggled 
and  with  the  aid  of  God  won  the  victory.     But  it  is  not  drink  alone. 

And  then  there  are  so  many  instances  in  little  things.  I  like  to  dwell 
upon  the  importance  of  little  things  in  life,  for  life  is  not  made  yp  of 
one  great  series  of  grandstand  plays.  It  is  made  up  of  the  little  things 
that  go  either  to  make  others  happy  or  to  make  them  unhappy.  It  is  the 
conduct  of  the  husband  as  he  comes  home  after  a  tired  day  in  restraining 
himself  when  he  is  met  by  his  eager,  curious  wife,  who  wants  to  know 
how  he  has  been  living  during  that  day  and  what  has  happened.  Per- 
haps something  has  happened  that  does  not  please  him,  and  he  does  not 
like  to  refer  to  it,  and  he  cuts  her  off  with  a  short  answer.  Oh,  I  know 
it  and  so  do  you.  You  have  done  it.  So  have  I.  Now  it  is  in  the  over- 
coming of  that  disposition,  the  keeping  constantly  in  your  mind  and  heart 
her  happiness,  and  not  your  comfort  and  your  disposition.  That  is  what 
makes  you  greater  than  if  you  took  a  city.  And  so  it  is  with  reference 
to  everyone  with  whom  you  come  in  contact.  If  you  have  to  say  "No," 
say  it  in  such  a  way  as  to  indicate  to  the  person  to  whom  you  say  it  ihat 
you  would  like  to  say  "Yes"  if  you  could;  and  when  you  do  say  "Yes" 
and  are  able  to  communicate  it  to  the  other  person,  then  you  are  glad 
because  you  know  it  makes  him  feel  happy.  These  are  the  homely  illus- 
trations of  what  I  read  into  that  text.  But  I  am  supposed,  I  suppose,  to 
look  at  things  from  a  political  and  governmental  standpoint,  and  the  text 
appeals  to  me  more  strongly  in  that  regard  possibly  than  in  any  other, 
because  of  some  very  acute  experiences  that  I  have  had  in  political 
matters- 
Popular  government  we  all  approve  of,  though  sometimes  I  don't 
think  we  know  exactly  why  we  do  approve  it.  I  think  we  mistake  fre- 
quently ends  for  means.  We  talk  about  liberty  as  something  to  be  se- 
cured as  an  end.  We  think  popular  government  as  something  to  be  se- 
cured as  an  end.  Well,  neither  is  true.  Liberty  is  a  means  in  the  pur- 
suit of  happiness.  Popular  government  we  have  because  we  believe 
that  it  is  the  best  government,  that  it  is  the  government  which  makes 
most  people  happy,  and  the  reason  is  this :  That  in  the  long  run  the 
interests  of  any  particular  class,  and  by  that  I  mean  those  people  who 
are  affected  by  .the  same  sort  of  circumstances,  can  by  representa- 
tion in  the  government  be  better  trusted  to  look  after  their  own  interests 
than  any  other  class  can  be  trusted  to  look  after  those  interests 
no  matter  how  altruistic  that  class.  So  that  if  every  class  is  represented, 
assuming  that  each  class  has  intelligence  enough  to  know  its  own  in- 
terest, we  can  count  on  that  being  a  better  government  than  a  gov- 
ernment by  one  or  a  few  or  only  a  particular  class.  That  is  a  popular 
government,  but  you  can  not  run  a  popular  government  merely  by  calling 
it  so.  You  have  got  to  have  some  means  of  determining  what  shall  di- 
rect the  course  of  government ;  what  shall  deride.  That  is  the  majority. 
I  don't  know  any  other  method  in  a  popular  government.  We  do  have 
checks.  We  do  have  indirect  means  of  giving  expression  to  that  vote 
of  the  majority,  but  when  you  get  down  to  the  basis,  it  is  the  control  of 


44 

the  majority.  Now  you  can  not  have  a  decent,  popular  government  un- 
less that  majority  can  conquer  itself ;  that  is  unless  that  majority  ex- 
ercises the  self-restraint  that  meii  with  great  power  ought  to  exercise 
if  it  is  to  be  exercised  justly,  you  can  not  have  popular  government. 
And  why?  Well,  take  instances.  I  am  not  going  into  the  various  parts 
of  the  world,  but  I  could  call  your  attention,  if  it  wasn't  that  I  am  in 
a  responsible  position  now  with  resj>ect  to  foreign  countries,  and  1 
have  got  to  speak  with  care — I  could  call  your  attention  to  a  good  many 
instances  where  those  who  are  in  favor  of  popular  government,  and  who, 
if  I  may  use  the  expression,  pull  the  tail  feathers  out  of  the  eagle  in 
deifying  liberty  and  apostrophizing  everything  that  we  think  dear,  and 
yet  just  as  soon  as  they  become  a  majority  they  think  that  gives  them 
the  right  to  control  the  minority  absolutely,  and  if  the  minority  show 
any  disposition  to  question  it,  they  send  them  to  jail.  What  is  the  effect 
of  that?  They  say  this  is  popular  rule;  this  is  the  rule  of  the  ma- 
jority. So  what  does  the  minority  do?  Why  the  minority  says:  "We 
will  take  to  the  woods,"  and  they  do  take  to  the  woods.  And  so  we 
have  that  system  that  alternates  between  an  election  and  a  revolution 
and  a  revolution  and  an  election,  and  you  call  that  popular  government. 
Now  why  is  it  that  that  works  that  way?  It  is  because  the  majority 
and  the  minority  do  not  govern  themselves  and  do  not  exercise  that  self- 
restraint  without  which  popular  government  is  absolutely  impossible. 
And  that  is  the  application  of  the  text  that  comes  home  to  me  in  think- 
ing and  dealing  with  those  countries  that  are  struggling  for  popular 
government.  A  minority  that  is  beaten  in  the  election  can  not  stand  the 
defeat.  It  has  to  go  to  the  woods.  They  are  not  good  losers,  and  the 
majority  are  not  good  winners.  Popular  government  is  a  most  diffi- 
cult thing  to  establish.  We  have  had  to  hammer  it  out  in  a  thousand 
years  of  Anglo-Saxon  suffering  and  controversy  and  contest.  And  now 
it  rests  where?  It  rests  in  the  common  sense  and  the  self  restraint  of 
the  American  jjeople.  It  rests  in  the  knowledge  of  the  majority  that  it 
has  got  to  keep  within  the  checks  of  the  law  and  the  Constitution  if 
the  Government  is  to  be  preserved.  And  it  must  rest  in  the  view  of  the 
minority  that  it  is  much  more  important  that  the  government  should 
be  sustained  than  that  the  minority  should  have  for  the  time  being 
control  of  or  a  voice  in  the  government.  It  rests  in  the  knowledge  of 
the  majority  that  the  rights  of  the  minority  and  the  individuals  of  that 
minority  are  exactly  as  sacred  as  the  rights  of  the  individuals  of  the 
majority.  Our  people  exercised  government  over  themselves  when  they 
adopted  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  We  don't  vote  directly 
under  that  Constitution.  We  have  a  vote  which  controls  the  lower  House 
in  the  selection  of  the  members.  We  delegate  to  those  members  the 
power  to  make  laws.  We  do  not  make  them  directly.  We  elect  legisla- 
tures that  elect  Senators.  Those  Senators  are  re-elected  every  six  years. 
The  members  of  the  House  are  elected  every  two  years,  and  then  we  elect 
a  President  every  four  j^ears.  Each  one  of  those  little  joints  between 
popular  expression  and  will  and  the  embodying  of  that  will  in  the  re- 
sultant course  of  the  government,  is  something  which  the  people  volun- 
tarily  introduced   into   our   government    for   what   purpose?     To   enable 


45 

them  to  g-overn  themselves,  so  that  the  first  wave  of  popular  will  should 
not  find  immediate  expression  in  legislation,  but  that  the  people  should 
take  time,  should  discuss  the  matter,  and  should  have  several  delays  before 
they  accomplish  their  entire  purpose  with  respect  to  the  government. 

The  people  rule,  there  is  no  doubt  about  that,  but  they  rule  ac- 
cording to  law  and  under  the  Constitution,  and  they  voluntarily  and  wil- 
lingly placed  the  restraints  of  that  Constitution  upon  themselves  in 
order  that  they  might  act  with  deliberation  and  with  the  checks  that 
were  sure  to  secure  moderate,  clear-headed,  well-thought-out  politics, 
and  therefore  when  the  American  people  voted  that  Constitution  and 
now  are  maintaining  it  and  supporting  it,  as  I  hope  they  always  will, 
they  are  governing  themselves,  and  are  more  to  be  credited  than  he  that 
taketh  a  city. 

And  finally,  even  we,  or  rather  even  those  of  the  cloth  whose  place 
I  humbly  take  at  this  hour,  have  learned  to  govern  themselves  in  this. 
There  was  a  time  in  religious  history  when  the  man  who  was  in  gov- 
ernmental control  and  had  his  own  theological  theory  to  work  out,  worked 
it  out  by  breaking  everybody  into  believing  it  or  else  by  cutting  off  the 
head  or  burning  the  body  of  the  man  who  didn't  agree  with  him.  Well, 
you  can  reason  out  pretty  logically  sometimes  that  that  was  the  course 
to  be  properly  taken.  And  we  tried  it  on  both  sides.  One  church  and 
then  the  other,  as  it  got  a  chance,  took  that  method  of  introducing  re- 
ligion into  the  mind  and  soul  and  body  of  the  person  thus  offered 
up.  After  a  time  there  crept  into  the  beliefs  and  practice  of  all  re- 
ligions the  idea  that  the  way  to  have  religion  conquer  w^as  to  be  gentle 
with  views  that  were  contrary  to  the  creed  and  rely  on  the  arguments 
and  the  spirit  of  the  religion  to  win  converts  rather  than  to  use  the 
stake  and  the  axe.  They  overcame  that  feeling  in  themselves  that 
they  must  make  their  religion  conquer  by  any  means,  and  they  took 
the  method  that  introduced  a  broad  tolerance  of  all  religious  creeds  and 
let  each  creed  and  each  religion  speak  for  itself  gently  with  a  message 
of  good  will  to  all  humanity;  and  that  is  what  we  have  to-day.  And 
that  is  what  I  am  glad  to  think  is  illustrated  by  this  meeting  to-day.  It 
means  the  brotherhood  of  man  as  between  all  Christian  religions,  the 
brotherhood  of  man  and  the  Fatherhood  of  God.  It  means  tolerance  for 
every  belief  and  every  creed  that  a  man  honestly  and  conscientiously  en- 
tertains. And  it  means  that  with  that  tolerance  all  the  people  can  be 
much  more  surely  brought  within  the  circle  of  those  who  believe  and 
act  upon  that  belief  than  by  any  other  method. 


40 


ADDEESS  OF  PEESIDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  WASHINGTON  CONVENTION 
OF  THE  LAYMEN'S  MISSIONARY  MOVEMENT  IN  CONTINENTAL 
MEMORIAL  HALL  OF  THE  DAUGHTERS  OF  THE  AMERICAN 
REVOLUTION,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C,  THURSDAY,  NOVEMBER  11, 
1909. 

Mr.  President,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Laymen's  Missionary  Move- 
ment : — I  like  to  think,  whether  it  be  true  or  not,  that  we  have  in  this 
generation  reached  a  somewhat  different  view  of  the  responsibilities  of 
a  civilized  nation  from  that  which  prevailed  in  the  last  generation,  espe- 
cially as  applied  to  our  country.  It  was  perhaps  natural  that  when  we 
were  engaged  in  digging  into  the  soil  and  doing  the  best  we  could  to 
make  enough  to  live  on,  we  should  fall  into  the  habit  of  thinking  that 
we  were  a  nation  by  ourselves,  with  no  responsibilities  whatever  with 
respect  to  the  rest  of  the  world.  So  we  have  had  maxims  come  down  to 
us,  and  a  construction  put  upon  Washington's  farewell  address  that  would 
still  keep  us  in  a  place  of  isolation,  and  with  pleasant  remarks  and  well 
and  politely  expressed  hopes  for  the  welfare  of  other  peoples,  would 
cause  us  to  devote  ourselves  entirely  to  our  own  improvement.  In  the 
days  when  that  principle  was  announced  and  was  followed  with  a  good 
deal  of  care,  there  was  one  doctrine  which  was  utterly  at  variance  with 
it — the  Monroe  doctrine.  That  did  cause  some  sort  of  responsibility 
and  did  make  us  assume  some  sort  of  protection  over  and  interest  in  the 
independent  nations  and  governments  of  this  hemisphere.  That  is  now 
enlarged  into  what  I  think  we  may  call  a  definite  recognition  on  the  part 
of  our  public  men  that  we  have  a  very  distinct  interest  in  the  welfare, 
and  a  very  distinct  duty  with  reference  to  the  condition,  of  the  coun- 
tries of  this  hemisphere,  and  that  we  have  exhibited  it  in  what  was,  I 
think  we  may  almost  say,  the  only  altruistic  foreign  war  that  history 
presents ;  that  in  which  we  fought  for  the  liberties  of  Cuba  and  the  end- 
ing of  what  we  regarded  at  that  time  as  an  international  scandal.  So 
we  have  gone  on ;  we  have  tatosn  over  in  a  sense  a  receivership  for  Santo 
Domingo ;  we  are  helping  out  Itiat  country  as  well  as  we  may,  and  we 
are  doing  what  we  can  to  preserve  the  peace  between  the  Central  Ameri- 
can countries ;  and  there  lies  back  in  all  the  history  of  this  continent 
the  possibilities  of  the  heavy  obligation  resting  upon  us  should  unhappi- 
ness  and  chaos  arise  among  any  of  the  people  of  this  hemisphere. 

That  is  one  step.  The  Cuban  war  illustrated  the  fact  that  when  you 
go  into  a  war  you  never  know  where  you  are  coming  out.  We  entered 
lightly — well,  not  lightly,  but  with  a  sense  of  due  gravity,  but  certainly 
not  with  a  sense  of  what  the  possibilities  were — at  Key  West  and  at 
Santiago,  and  we  brought  up  ten  thousand  miles  away  at  Manila.  Then 
we  had  to  take  over  that  Government;  and  we  still  have  it.  It  has  cost 
us  a  good  deal  of  money.  I  had  a  Democratic  Senator  ask  me  the  other 
day  how  much  I  thought  it  cost — "right  down  between  us,"  he  said.  Well, 
I  explained  to  him  that  the  War  Department  accounts  showed,  so  far  as 
the  army  was  concerned,  down  to  1902  it  had  cost  us  about  one  hundred 
and  seventy  millions  of  dollars,  and  that  the  further  cost  depended  upon 


47 

how  you  regarded  the  army.  If  3'ou  thought  we  could  get  along  with 
fifteen  to  twenty  thousand  men  less  than  we  now  had,  then  the  whole 
cost  of  these  men  should  be  imposed  on  the  cost  of  our  Philippine  policy, 
which  would  be  twenty-five  or  thirty  millions  of  dollars ;  but  that  if  you 
thought  we  ought  to  have  an  army  as  it  is  now  anyway,  it  has  cost  by 
reason  of  our  Philippine  policy  upward  of  six  millions  of  dollars.  Per- 
haps I  am  a  little  bit  extreme ;  perhaps  my  experience  in  the  Philippines 
has  colored  my  view ;  but  I  do  not  think  that  the  money  we  have  spent 
in  that  way,  even  estimating  it  at  the  highest  sum,  has  been  wasted  in 
any  way.  I  think  it  has  developed  our  national  character ;  that  it  has 
broadened  us  into  a  view  of  our  national  responsibility  that  no  other 
experience  could.  No  one  can  say — I  mean  conscientiously  say,  I  mean 
"right  down  between  us" — that  we  have  been  there  for  the  exploitation 
of  our  own  business.  We  ha;ve  been  there  conscientiously  for  the  better- 
ment of  the  people  of  the  Philippine  Islands ;  and  I  am  sure  we  have 
bettered  their  condition.  We  are  in  the  position  of  many  a  man  who  has 
sought  to  help  another  man,  and  if  we  go  into  that  sort  of  thing  for 
undying  gratitude  we  may  as  well  give  it  up  in  the  beginning.  It  does 
not  continue  and  it  does  not  persist,  and  the  only  benefit  you  can  get 
out  of  it  is  the  consciousness  of  having  tried  to  do  something  for  another 
man  and  the  belief  that  you  have,  no  matter  what  he  thinks  about  it. 

I  was  thrown  into  the  Philippines  against  my  will — I  won't  say  that, 
for  I  am  a  person  I  presume  who  could  say  yes  or  no — but  I  mean  I  was 
led  into  it  by  another,  by  that  sweet  nature,  that  most  engaging  char- 
acter, that  lovely  man,  William  McKinley.  I  know  what  actuated  him 
and  I  know  that  the  spirit  that  actuated  him  influenced  us  all — his  suc- 
cessor, Theodore  Roosevelt;  his  Secretary  of  War,  Elihu  Eoot,  and  all 
who  had  the  good  fortune  to  serve  under  those  great  men.  In  the  con- 
trol and  government  of  those  islands  I  first  came  to  be  aware  of  the 
iniportance  of  foreign  missions ;  and,  if  I  may  say  so,  I  think  there  is  a 
strong  analogy  between  the  spirit  that  leads  a  nation  into  what  we  have 
done  in  Cuba,  in  Santo  Domingo  and  in  the  Philippines,  and  that  move- 
ment which  I  am  glad  to  see  growing  stronger  and  stronger — the  move- 
ment in  favor  of  foreign  missions.  The  Philippine  Islands  themselves 
are  an  example  of  what  ancient  foreign  missions  could  do.  They  are 
the  only  people,  the  only  race,  in  the  Orient  that  are  Christians,  and  they 
w^ere  made  so  three  hundred  years  ago  by  the  earnest  efforts  of  Au- 
gustinian  and  Franciscan  friars.  They  led  them  on,  taught  them  the 
agricultural  arts,  and  led  them  on  to  a  peaceful  and  religious  life.  They 
did  not  believe  in  too  much  education ;  they  did  not  believe  in  bringing 
them  into  close  communion  with  the  European  nations.  They  thought 
there  was  a  good  deal  they  might  learn  there  that  would  hurt  them. 
But  that  which  they  wrought  has  been  to  our  great  advantage  in  work- 
ing out  the  problem  that  we  are  set  to  there,  the  problem  of  teaching 
them  self-government.  They  are  a  Christian  people,  and  they  look  to 
Europe  and  America  for  their  ideals,  and  they  recognize  those  ideals, 
and  that  makes  it  possible  to  instill  in  them  the  principles  of  civil  liberty 
and  the  freedom  of  our  institutions.  Now  there  came  about  in  the  islands 
what  is  perfectly  natural  with  the  prevalence  of  one  denomination,  and 


48 

the  division  between  the  Spanish  and  the  native  priesthood  led  to  a  great 
deal  of  demoralization  in  the  church,  and  led  to  its  taking  on  a  very- 
strong  political  character.  The  condition  has  greatly  improved  since  we 
veent  in  there,  in  that  regard,  because  of  course  we  carried  with  us  entire 
freedom  of  religion.  That  has  led  to  the  sending  in  of  missionaries  of 
other  than  the  Roman  Catholic  denomination,  and  has  brought  about 
a  spirit  of  emulation  and  competition  that  makes  for  the  good  of  the 
entire  islands  and  for  all  the  churches.  But  the  operation  of  the  foreign 
missions  there,  the  effect  upon  the  people,  the  influence  upon  the  people 
which  the  church  exerts  and  without  which  the  Government  could  carry 
on  but  few  of  its  reforms,  all  impress  themselves  upon  a  man  charged 
with  the  responsibility  of  civil  government  in  those  islands. 

In  the  Orient  I  could  not  but  take  an  interest  in  what  occurred  on 
the  mainland.  The  Philippine  Islands  are  about  sixty-six  hours  from 
Hong-Kong,  but  here  we  are  apt  to  associate  them  all  together.  Dis- 
tances there  do  not  seem  quite  so  great  as  they  do  here,  and  you  do 
come  closer  to  China  when  you  are  in  the  Philippines  than  when  you 
are  here.  We  could,  those  of  us  who  were  in  the  Orient,  study  somewhat 
the  Chinese  question,  study  somewhat  the  movements  that  were  going  on 
in  that  great  Empire  of  four  hundred  millions  of  people ;  and  the  chief 
movement  that  was  going  on  was  a  movement  that  found  its  inspiration, 
that  had  its  progress,  in  the  foreign  missions  that  have  been  sent  there 
to  introduce  Christian  civilization  among  that  people.  I  do  not  hesitate 
to  say  that,  because  I  am  convinced  of  the  fact.  They  are  the  outposts 
of  the  Christian  civilization.  Each  missionary,  with  his  house  and  his 
staff,  forms  a  nucleus  about  which  gathers  an  influence  far  in  excess  of 
the  numerical  list  of  the  converts.  They  have  a  political  influence,  an 
influence  upon  the  Government  of  China  itself,  upon  the  Viceroys  of 
China,  who  exercise  so  much  power  there  that  we  do  not  understand. 
The  development  of  China  to-day,  and  her  budding  out  as  she  is,  and  as 
I  hope  she  will  continue  to  do,  is  largely  the  result  of,  first,  the  mis- 
sionary movement,  and  then  the  education  in  America  and  elsewhere, 
under  the  influence  of  these  missionaries,  of  young  Chinamen  who  are 
anxious  that  their  country  shall  take  the  position  that  her  wealth,  and 
numbers,  and  resources,  and  possibilities,  and  history  justify.  The  same 
thing  is  true,  though  I  am  not  so  familiar  with  it,  in  regard  to  Africa. 
The  men  who  take  their  lives  in  their  hands  and  go  among  the  natives 
are  entitled  to  be  called  the  outposts  of  civilization.  They  have  been 
criticized,  and  I  presume  that  is  something  that  is  common  to  human 
kind ;  they  have  been  held  up  to  contempt  at  times.  I  have  read  one 
book  by  a  very  distinguished  author  who  visited  China  and  thought  it 
wise  to  poke  fun  at  what  he  called  the  assumed  self-sacriflce  of  the  mis- 
sionaries in  China.  But  I  am  glad  to  say — I  have  not  seen  it  myself,  but 
I  understand — that  the  author  has  withdrawn  all  these  implications  and 
all  of  this  criticism  of  the  men  who  are  flghting  for  the  cause  of  civiliza- 
tion in  that  great  country.  You  visit  a  Chinese  mission — -I  mean  a 
denominational  mission  in  China  from  this  country  or  Great  Britain — 
and  you  find  a  large  house,  you  find  a  considerable  staff,  you  find  as  near 
comfort  as  they  can  have  in  a  country  that  does  not  know  what  Occidental 


49 

comfort  is ;  but  you  find  upon  examination  that  tliey  have  to  go  out 
among  the  sick,  they  have  to  pursue  their  course  of  life  far  away  from 
friends  and  homes ;  they  have  to  undergo  that  homesickness  that  no  one 
understands  until  he  has  been  ten  thousand  miles  aw^ay  from  home  and 
is  longing  just  to  breathe  in  the  smoke  of  his  own  home,  dirty  as  it  is, 
in  order  that  he  may  know  that  he  is  near  where  he  grew  up.  The  lives 
they  lead,  the  good  they  do,  and  the  fact  that  they  represent  the  highest 
of  our  civilization,  make  it  so  important  that  they  should  be  sent,  with 
all  the  instruments  of  usefulness  possible,  into  those  far  distant  places. 
I  sincerely  hope  that  the  result  of  this  movement  will  give  to  the 
foreign  missions  an  impetus  that,  with  due  respect  to  our  clerical 
brethren,  it  can  not  have  unless  the  whole  body  of  good  men  in  the 
community  press  forward.  I  have  spoken  of  it  solely  from  the  laymen's 
standpoint  and  not  from  the  purely  religious  standpoint ;  but  I  have 
spoken  the  things  that  I  think  I  know,  and  I  am  here  not  so  much  to 
talk  as  to  express  by  my  presence  the  sympathy  I  have  with  the  move- 
ment that  you  have  so  successfully  inaugurated. 


ADDEESS  OF  HOTC.  WM.  H.  TAFT  BEFORE  THE  Y.  M.  C.  A.,  DAYTON, 
OHIO,  MAY  28,  1907. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  of  Dayton  : — It  is  my  great  good  fortune  that 
an  engagement  of  a  year's  standing  has  brought  me  to  southwestern  Ohio 
at  such  a  time  as  to  be  present  upon  the  occasion  of  dedicating  this  great 
new  building  in  your  beatiful  city  to  the  high  purposes  of  the  Young  Men's 
Christian  Association.  The  ample  proportions  of  this  building,  and  its 
necessarily  great  cost,  furnish  the  clearest  evidence  of  the  generous  sup- 
port which  the  association  receives  from  the  people  of  Dayton.  And  the 
reason  is  not  far  to  seek.  It  has  doubtless  demonstrated  in  this  com- 
munity as  elsewhere  that  it  is  one  of  the  best  instrumentalities  for 
assisting  those  whose  circumstances  deny  them  a  comfortable  home  and 
prevent  them  from  enjoying  at  home  the  rational  amusements  and  use- 
ful occupations  of  their  leisure  hours  which  are  available  generally  to 
the  more  fortunate  of  the  community. 

The  great  advantage  of  the  institution  is,  that  after  long  experience 
it  has,  come  to  be  conducted  on  the  most  approved  business  principles. 
And  while  it  furnishes,  on  the  one  hand,  an  opportunity  for  the  con- 
tributions of  those  who  love  their  fellowmen,  it  furnishes,  on  the  other, 
an  example  of  assistance  to  those  who  need  assistance  which  is  not  ex- 
travagant or  excessive  and  which  does  not  discourage  self-help  by  creating 
a  spirit  of  dependence  in  those  v>^ho  enjoy  the  benefits  which  it  offers. 

The  world  has  improved  greatly  in  fraternal  brotherhood  and  in  as- 
sistance which  the  more  fortunate  extend  to  those  less  fortunate.  But 
no  problem  in  our  whole  social  life  is  more  difficult  than  that  repre- 
sented to  one  who  wishes  to  give  money  to  aid  his  fellowman  without 
doing  him  more  injury  than  good.  The  instances  of  ill-advised  gener- 
osity are  as  many,  almost,  as  the  instances   of  ill-advised   investments. 


50 

And  when  we  find  an  institution  which  has  worked  out  the  problem  of 
materially  aiding-  our  fellowmen  in  the  struggles  of  life  without  in- 
juring their  self-respect  and  without  discouraging  their  self-support  to- 
ward better  things,  we  have  something  that  we  should  certainly  prize. 

Another  characteristic  of  the  association  is  its  nonsectarian  religious 
quality.  It  believes  in  the  Christian  religion  but  is  tolerant^  liberal  in 
its  scope,  and  knows  no  denomination,  no  race,  no  politics.  The  truth 
is,  the  growth  of  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association  has  been  an  evi- 
dence of,  and  at  the  same  time  an  assistance  to,  the  growth  of  the  spirit 
of  Christian  tolerance  among  all  denominations.  We  are  all  more  tol- 
erant to-day  than  formerly.  I  never  was  so  fully  conscious  of  this  fact 
as  when  the  question  arose  which  had  become  intensely  acute  in  the 
Philippine  Islands  in  regard  to  the  continued  ownership  of  a  large  body 
of  agricultural  lands  by  certain  religious  orders  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church.  By  circumstances  not  really  connected  with  religion  at  all 
but  growing  out  of  political  conditions,  the  Catholic  people  of  the  Is- 
lands had  been  aroused  to  bitter  hostility  against  the  continued  owner- 
ship of  these  lands  by  the  religious  orders,  and  with  the  restoration 
of  peace  and  the  resort  to  the  courts  (to  which  the  orders  would  have 
been  entitled)  for  the  collection  of  rents  or  the  eviction  of  60,000  ten- 
ants, the  prospect  of  a  new '  insurrection  was  immediate,  and  the  solu- 
tion which  offered  itself  w^as,  that  the  government  should  buy  these 
lands  from  the  Friars  and  then  sell  them  on  easy  terms  to  the  present 
tenants.  In  order  to  bring  this  about,  however,  it  was  necessary  to 
secure  the  consent  of  the  head  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church,  and  it 
was  thought  wise,  therefore,  to  send  a  representative  to  Rome  to  confer 
with  Leo  XIII  upon  this  question,  in  order,  if  possible,  to  bring  about 
a  friendly  and  amicable  solution.  But  it  was  seriously  objected  that  the 
Protestant  denominations  of  the  country  will  resent  deeply  the  estab- 
lishment even  temporarily^  of  what  might  seem  to  be  diplomatic  rela- 
tions with  a  church.  Finally,  the  President,  after  consulting  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  leading  Protestant  denominations,  counted  upon  the 
good  sense  and  religious  tolerance  of  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
and  concluded  to  follow  the  ordinary  business  principle  that  w^hen  one 
wishes  to  accomplish  a  result  he  should  deal  directly  with  the  ^Dcrson 
having  the  power  effectually  to  agree  upon  the  result  desired,  and  a 
representative  was  sent.  The  business,  after  much  negotiation  both  at 
Rome  and  at  Manila,  was  finall^^  concluded,  and  no  persons  were  more 
considerate  of  the  difficulties  presented  and  sympathetic  with  the  policy 
adopted  to  meet  them  by  the  President  than  the  Protestant  demoni- 
nations  whose  opposition  had  been  feared.  -  I  venture  to  think  that  50 
years  ago  such  a  result  would  not  have  followed,  and  that  the  motives 
of  the  government  and  of  the  President  would  have  been  misunderstood 
or  misconstrued.  I  regard  that  as  one  striking  instance  of  the  greater 
brotherhood  that  now  exists  between  the  great  Christian  denomJnations 
— a  brotherhood  that  finds  no  more  eloquent  proof  than  the  continued 
prosperity  and  the  growth  in  influence  and  power  of  the  Young  Men's 
Christian  Association  which   dedicates  this   building   to-day. 

The   Young   Men's   Christian   Association   has   come   to   be    recognized 


51 

as  a  powerful  and  necessary  factor,  both  in  business  and  in  government 
matters.  All  railroad  men  with  whom  one  comes  in  contact  speak  in 
the  highest  terms  of  what  the  Association  is  doing  for  the  elevation 
and  assistance  of  railroad  employes  in  creating  healthful  home  influences 
for  them.  The  railroad  companies  find  it  to  their  pecuniary  interest  to 
erect  and  fit  up  expensive  structures  for  the  rational,  physical,  intel- 
•lectual  and  moral  amusement  and  entertainment  of  their  employes  on 
each  division  and  to  put  them  under  the  control  of  the  Young  :Men's 
Christian  Association.  So  Congress,  in  its  wisdom,  has  given  authority 
to  the  Secretary  of  War,  in  an  act  passed  May,  1902,  to  grant  permis- 
sion, by  revocable  license,  to  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association  to 
maintain  on  the  military  reservations  in  the  United  States  and  in  its 
island  possessions  such  buildings  as  their  work  for  the  promotion  of 
intellectual,  physical  and  moral  welfare  of  the  garrisons  may  require, 
under  such  regulations  as  the  Secretary  of  War  may  approve;  and 
under  date  of  May  7,  1904,  the  Secretary  of  War  directed  that  permis- 
sion be  granted  to  the  Army  Young  Men's  Christian  Association  to  es- 
tablish its  work  at  the  various  posts  of  the  army  of  the  United  States 
and  in  the  Island  of  Porto  Rico  and  the  Philippines,  and  commanding 
officers  were  enjoined  to  facilitate  the  efforts  of  the  Association  to 
provide  healthful  physical,  intellectual,  and  nonsectarian  religious  in- 
fluences by  providing  therefor  suitable  quarters,  which  might  be  in  the 
post  exchange  building,  if  rooms  there  were  available  and  their  use  for 
such  purpose  was  deemed  wise  by  the  commanding  officer.  This  permis- 
sion has  been  availed  of  by  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association  at  a 
great  many  posts,  and  it  is  doing  excellent  work  in  furnishing  to  the 
soldiers  of  our  army  the  opportunity  to  enjoy  their  leisure  hours  in 
healthful  and  moral  physical  and  intellectual  entertainment  and  amuse- 
ment. 

'  But  nowhere  is  the  opportunity  for  usefulness  of  the  Young  Men's 
Christian  Association  greater  than  among  Americans  in  the  Philippines, 
Porto  Rico,  Cuba  and  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama.  It  is  inevitable  that 
a  great  many  of  the  Americans  who  go  first  to  our  tropical  dependen- 
cies, a  long  distance  from  the  United  States,  should  be  wandering  and 
irresponsible.  And  it  is  also  inevitable  that  many  men  who  are  staid 
and  upright  and  of  good  habits  at  home,  when  they  go  to  tropical 
cities  far  away  from  home,  should  yield  to  the  temptation  of  drinking, 
gambling  and  other  dissipations,  because  during  their  idle  hours  in  those 
remote  countries  there  seems  to  be  nothing  else  to  do.  A  striking  illus- 
tration of  the  truth  of  the  maxim  "The  devil  finds  some  work  for  idle 
hands  to  do,"  is  found  in  the  demoralization  of  many  Americans  who 
first  settle  in  our  foreign  dependencies.  The  loss  of  vitality,  and  the 
depression  produced  by  the  continued  high  temperature,  so  common 
to  persons  brought  up  in  a  temperate  zone,  while  living  in  the  tropics, 
make  a  greater  temptation  to  seek  relief  in  stimulants  than  in  this 
country,  and  the  absence  of  anything  else  to  do  leads  on  to  a  continuance 
in  the  indulgence  until  a  habit  formed  is  even  more  destructive  of  the 
physical  and  moral  character  of  the  individual  than  it  is  here.  There 
are  no  attractive  theatres.     There  are  but  few  places  of  amusement  of 


62 

any  kind.  Libraries  are  insufficient.  Home  amusements  are  wanting. 
And  is  it  any  wonder,  under  tliese  conditions,  that  many  Americans 
wander  from  the  ijath  of  rectitude  and  morality? 

This  is  not  only  unfortunate  for  themselves,  but  it  is  especially  un- 
fortunate from  a  public  standpoint,  in  view  of  what  we  are  trying  to 
do  with  those  tropical  peoples  in  the  Philippines.  We  are  seeking 
to  give  them  capacity  for  self-government.  We  are  seeking  to  do  that 
by  educating  them,  by  teaching  them  American  institutions,  and  by  in- 
culcating- in  them,  as  far  as  we  may,  admiration  for  and  a  de- 
sire to  imitate  our  civilization.  Of  course,  there  are  a  number  of 
people  among  the  natives  who  resent  this  purpose,  and  who  strongly  as- 
sert that  they  have  a  civilization  quite  equal  to  ours,  and  in  this  way 
seek  to  divert  their  people  from  that  path  along  which  we  would  lead 
tnem.  Nothing  contributes  more  to  the  support  of  the  views  of  these 
opponents  of  our  plans  of  progress  than  the  presence  in  Manila  and 
other  cities  and  towns  of  dissolute  Americans  whose  example  is  any- 
thing but  edifying,  and  who  form  an  object  lesson  to  enforce  the  claim 
made  by  our  opponents  that  there  is  nothing  of  value  in  American 
civilization  for  them  to  follow.  Their  people  are  generally  a  temperate 
people,  as  most  tropical  people  are,  while  northern  people  in  the  tropics 
are  not  infrequently  given  to  intemperance. 

Now,  the  way  to  avoid  this  result  is,  to  furnish  a  place  in  which  the 
leisure  hours  of  Americans  in  these  dependencies  can  be  passed  in 
rational,  elevating  and  moral  pursuits  and  entertainments.  The  Young 
Men's  Christian  Association  is  one  of  the  most  effective  instruments  to 
this  end  that  we  have.  The  Young  Men's  Christian  Association  went  out 
with  the  army  in  1898,  and  has  been  in  Manila  ever  since.  I  am  glad 
to  say  that  it  is  increasing  ite  influence  by  increasing  its  plants,  increas- 
ing the  number  of  agents  who  represent  it,  and  sending  there  men  of  the 
highest  experience  and  energy  and  enthusiasm. 

Recentlj^  Mr.  Mott,  of  the  Association,  raised  in  this  country  $80,000 
for  the  construction  of  a  building  in  Manila  on  condition  that  $40,000 
should  be  added  to  the  $80,000  for  this  purpose  by  the  citizens  of  Manila. 
It  speaks  highly  of  the  public  spirit  of  the  Americans  and  others  in 
Manila  and  for  the  energy  of  the  agents  who  represent  the  Association 
in  Manila  that  in  a  very  few  days  after  the  offer  became  known,  although 
business  conditions  are  by  no  means  hig'hly  prosperous,  $42,000  were 
raised  and  the  generous  enterprise  has  become  a  completed  thing.  The 
munificence  of  the  donors  was  met  by  the  public  spirit  of  the  people  of 
Manila,  and  we  shall  now  have,  in  that  far  distant  oriental  city,  a  great 
Christian  club  which  will  keep  men  from  drinking,  gambling  and  other 
forms  of  vice,  by  offering  them  an  opportunity  to  spend  their  unoccupied 
hours  in  a  home  atmosphere,  surrounded  by  the  best  influences. 

Again,  we  are  constructing  a  great  canal  across  the  Isthmus  of 
Panama.  We  have  now  introduced  into  that  Zone,  40  miles  long  by  ten 
miles  wide  but  for  all  practical  purposes  not  more  than  a  mile  wide,  a^bout 
30,000  people,  of  whom  perhaps  7,000  are  Americans.  They  are  in  a 
tropical  climate,  with  an  absence  of  rational  amusements,  and  with  all 


53 

the  temptations  to  dissipation  and  degradation  to  which  a  new  commu- 
nity like  that  under  tropical  skies  is  exposed. 

Appreciating  that,  and  believing  that  no  measure  could  be  better 
directed  to  secure  good  work,  honest  work,  by  honest  and  moral  people, 
than  through  instrumentalities  which  should  prevent  the  employees  of 
the  Canal  Commission  from  yielding  to  the  temptation  to  lead  dissolute 
and  dissipated  lives,  the  Commission  has  constructed  four  club  houses, 
at  Culebra,  Empire,  Gorgona,  and  Cristobal.  They  are  all  alike  in 
design.  They  provide  a  front  building-  of  two  stories  connected  with  a 
rear  building-  of  one  story.  The  front  building,  which  will  be  313  feet  by 
45  feet,  will  contain  a  social  parlor,  a  card  room,  a  billiard  room,  and  a 
writing  room  on  the  first  floor,  and  an  assembly  hall  67  feet  by  27  feet, 
free  from  any  columns,  on  the  second  floor.  The  rear  building,  which 
will  be  100  feet  by  28  feet,  will  contain  double  bowling  alleys  100  feet 
long,  a  gymnasium  52  feet  long,  shower  baths,  and  over  a  hundred  single 
lockers.  A  comprehensive  plan  has  been  devised  whereby  the  Commission, 
working  in  conjunction  with  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  will 
manage  these  and  other  similar  buildings  in  the  chief  labor  centers.  The 
Commission  has  appointed  as  secretaries  of  these  four  club  houses  four 
gentlemen  who  are  identified  with  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association. 
The  Commission  has  also  appointed  as  superintendent  of  club  houses  a 
gentleman  who  went  to  the  Isthmus  as  a  representative  of  the  Inter- 
national Committee  of  the  Young  Men's  Christian  Association.  The  Com- 
mission pays  the  salaries  of  these  men  and  furnishes  the  houses,  and  will 
give  them  proper  libraries.  I  do  not  think  there  is  any  action  of  the 
Commission  that  will  do  more  to  assist  in  c&rrying  on  the  work  of  canal 
construction  intelligently  and  energetically  than  the  expenditure  of  the 
money  for  the  purposes  I  have  enumerated.  And  the  excellence  of  the 
results  will  be  made  possible  by  the  use  of  those  men  who  have  been 
trained  in  the  work  of  the  Young-  Men's  Christian  Association  and  who 
represent  that  Association  on  the  Isthmus. 

Some  question  has  been  raised  as  to  whether  the  expenditure  of  this 
money  was  within  the  authority  of  the  Commission.  I  haven't  the  slight- 
est doubt  about  it.  The  authority  of  the  President  in  the  construction 
Qif  the  canal  is  to  build  the  canal,  and  he  has  therefore  the  right  to 
expend  the  money  in  any  way  necessary  in  the  pursuit  of  that  purpose. 
This  is  a  great  enterprise,  involving  the  moving-  to  this  strip  which  con- 
nects the  two  oceans  in  the  far  distant  tropics  of  a  colony  of  from 
30,000  to  50,000  people.  To  render  them  efficient  for  the  purpose  for 
which  they  are  transported  there,  it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  they  be 
surrounded  with  the  influences  and  furnished  with  the  attractions  neces- 
sary to  keep  them  in  a  moral  and  physical  state  which  will  make  them 
efficient  laborers,  to  the  end  which  the  Government  has  in  view  in  ex- 
pending these  millions.  And  I  have  not  hesitated,  therefore,  not  only  to 
authorize  the  construction  of  these  club  houses  under  the  auspices  of  the 
Young  Men's  Christian  Association,  but  also  to  confirm  the  action  of  the 
Commission  in  the  payment  of  chaplains  of  different  denomina^tions  who 
officiate  in  the  church  services  held  in  the  buildings  of  the  Association 
in  the  various  labor  centers  across  the  Isthmus. 


54 

For  these  reasons  have  1  coine  to  bear  testhnony  to  the  greatness 
of  the  Association  whose  strength  and  usefulness  this  beautiful  building 
typifies.  It  is  only  one  of  many  evidences  to  be  found  all  over  this 
country,  in  the  far  distant  Philippines,  on  the  Isthmus  of  Panama,  in 
Cuba,  and  in  Porto  Ivieo,  of  the  great  work  which  the  Association  is 
doing  in  the  moral  elevation  of  American  manhood. 


addeess  of  hon.  william  h.  taft  at  the  dedication  of  the 
Mckinley  memorial  ougan  at  the  ^ietkopolitan  tem- 
ple, NEW  YORK  CITY,  SUNDAY  EVENING,  DECE^^IBER  13,  1908. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — I  heard  Dr.  Hill  say  to- 
night that  he  was  a  very  poor  beggar.  That  is  an  instance  of  self- 
depreciation.  W^hen  the  doctor  said  he  was  going  to  dedicate  an  organ, 
made  possible  through  the  generosity  of  Mr.  Carnegie,  in  memory  of 
William  McKinley,  he  said :  "Of  course,  you  will  help  us."  Well,  the 
doctor  and  I  w^ere  out  trying  to  convince  recalcitrant  voters  of  the  same 
thing,  and  it  was  a  peculiarly  suitable  occasion  for  him  to  make  the 
suggestion.  It  was  very  difficult  for  me  to  yield,  but  I  did  yield,  and 
I  judge  from  that  adaptation  of  time  and  circumstance  to  the  accomplish- 
ment of  purpose  that  Dr.  Hill  then  displayed,  that  he  has  facilities  for 
getting  things  that  he  does  not  beg  for  and  therefore  does  not  need  to 
be  a  beggar.  But  I  sympathize  very  deeply  with  Dr.  Hill's  work  here  and 
with  the  work  that  this  tabernacle  is  doing,  and  I  sincerely  hope  that  his 
aspiration  for  an  endowment,  which  shall  make  everybody  happy  in  this 
part  of  the  city,  will  be  satisfied,  even  if  it  takes  one  or  two  more  meet- 
ings of  this  kind,  distributed  through  the  next  Presidential  term.  Al- 
though I  say  now  that  I  can  not  come,  I  am  sure  I  will  be  here. 

As  he  painted  a  picture  of  the  night  which  he  wished  to  develop, 
it  did  seem  to  me  that  it  was  exceedingly  appropriate  that  a  man  who 
loves  music  as  our  friend — for  everybody  must  call  Mr.  Carnegie  "our 
friend" — for  he  is  a  friend  of  all  of  us — all  we  have  to  do  is  to  recipro- 
cate— don't  misunderstand  me — not  a  literal  reciprocation — it  is  exceed- 
ingly appropriate  that  a  man  who  loves  music  would  make  it  possible 
that  this  organ  should  be  here  dedicated  to  a  man  like  William  McKinley, 
whose  whole  soul  was  one  of  harmony.  There  is  nothing  that  suggests  his 
whole  character  as  that  harmonious  relation  with  his  fellowmen,  with 
his  family,  with  his  God  and  with  his  country.  He  bent  every  effort  to 
make  that  note  of  harmony  always  sound  wherever  his  influence  extended. 

He  had  a  face  that  could  be  made  by  caricature  or  an  artist  to  look 
something  like  that  of  Napoleon.  It  was,  as  you  know,  a  frequent  sug- 
gestion ;  both  had  fine  outlines,  but  the  character  of  the  two  men  was  so 
absolutely  different  that  the  suggestion  was  really  only  a  surface  one, 
and  only  a  passing  impression.  Napoleon  was  a  man  most  peremptory 
and  decided  in  his  methods  and  strong  of  will  beyond  anything  then 
known.  McKinley  was  a  man  strong  of  will  but  absolutely  without  the 
mandatory   peremptory   character   that   were   known  in   Napoleon.     Mc- 


.       55 

Kinley  accomplished  his  purpose  over  men  and  over  thing's,  but  largely 
through  their  voluntary  acquiescence  in  his  will. 

The  thing  that  came  over  you  when  you  dealt  with  McKinley  was 
his  sweetness. 

Colonel  McCook  said,  or  perhaps  it  was  Mr.  Carnegie,  that  he  had 
never  heard  of  a  word  of  impatience  coming  from  his  lips  and  that  he 
never  knew  him  to  be  angry.  I  knew  him  pretty  well,  and  I  never  knew 
him  to  be  angry  but  once,  and  that  was  when  somebody  was  threatening 
him  that  if  he  did  not  do  a  certain  thing  with  reference  to  his  policy 
in  the  Philippines,  that  he  did  not  think  it  was  the  right  thing  to  do,  he 
would  lose  the  nomination  for  the  second  term.  The  dispatch  that  was 
sent  in  reply  was  mild.  While  it  was  parliamentary  and  diplomatic  in 
language,  it  left  no  doubt  what  McKinley  thought  of  the  sender.  There 
was  no  impatience,  there  was  not  any  indirection,  but  it  was  an  expres- 
sion of  opinion  on  the  issue  presented. 

Major  McKinley  was  a  great  judge  of  men.  I  did  not  quite  realize 
how  great  a  judge  of  men  he  was  until  I  had  to  select  a  cabinet  of  my 
own.  He  always  seemed  to  be  sure  of  his  men.  No  matter  how  positive 
the  information  was  brought  to  him  that  the  man  whom  he  wished  for 
a  particular  job  would  not  accept  it,  he  never  was  discouraged.  He  said  : 
"I  will  get  him,"  and  so  far  as  I  know,  he  always  did.  I  know  that  he 
was  told  positively  that  he  could  not  get  the  greatest  Secretary  of  War 
we  ever  had — I  hardly  except  Stanton — Elihu  Eoot.  Elihu  Root  went  over 
to  Washington  determined  to  decline,  but  he  went  back  as  Secretary  of 
War,  and  so  it  was  his  influence  over  men,  his  power  of  receiving  a  man 
into  his  cabinet.  That  description  of  putting  a  man  down  into  the  seat 
of  the  Secretary  of  State  was  perfectly  characteristic.  He  would  give 
him  a  carnation,  he  would  send  a  kindly  word  to  his  wife,  and  the  man 
coming  to  ask  for  an  office  and  going  out  without  it  would  feel  much 
greater  gratitude  toward  McKinley  than  many  a  man  who  had  left  other 
Presidents  with  the  couamission  in  his  pocket.  He  breathed  out  in  his 
manner  with  men  the  sweetness  that  he  felt  and  had  toward  the  whole 
world.  He  never  would  cultivate  animosities  or  hostilities.  He  was 
always  ready  to  forgi\*e.  He  had,  more  than  any  President  I  know, 
greater  power  in  dealing  with  both  houses  of  Congress.  He  had  been 
for  a  long  time  a  member  of  the  House  of  Representatives  and  under- 
stood the  slightest  motive  that  would  govern  any  member  of  that  House, 
and  so  it  was  with  the  Senate.  They  all  were  anxious  to  do  what  he 
wished,  and  when  they  could  not  do  it,  they  were  all  disappointed. 

He  was  a  lover  of  peace  throughout  his  nature,  and  yet  he  had  more 
wars  than  any  President  since  Lincoln.  Does  not  Fate  play  tricks  with 
us?  Are  not  the  ways  of  Providence  mysterious?  To  think  that  a  man 
who  loved  peace  as  Lincoln  did,  as  i)eaceful  a  man  as  Garfield  was,  and 
as  McKinley  was,  should  be  taken  off  as  they  were  by  the  hand  of  the 
assassin,  and  that  two  of  them  should  have  had  upon  thei.r  souls  and 
minds  the  responsibilities  of  those  wars :  Lincoln  the  Civil  War,  and 
McKinley  three  wars,  for  there  were  three  wars:  the  Spanish  war,  the 
Philippine  war,  and  the  Boxer  war. 

Reference  has  been  made  to  Major  McKinley's  knowledge  of  war.    As 


a  matter  of  fact,  he  conducted  the  Spanish  war.  He  took  full  charge  of 
the  War  Department  and  was  always  there  to  receive  telegrams  and  to 
issue  telegrams  governing  the  movements  of  the  troops.  You  all  remem- 
ber how  the  hotheads  of  the  Government  were  anxious  to  bring  on  the 
Spanish  war,  and  that  a  majority  of  our  f)eople  felt  that  the  international 
scandal  at  our  doors  required  action  by  us,  and  that  in  their  happy-go- 
lucky  conjidence  in  Providence  and  in  our  national  deserts,  we  were 
ready  to  go  into  war  without  knowing  whether  we  were  prepared  or  not, 
that  we  could  whip  a  nation.  You  all  know  how  martial  we  were  when 
Mr.  Cleveland  sent  in  that  Venezuela  message.  We  had  just  one  gun  down 
here  at  Sandy  Hook,  and  that  was  the  only  one  on  the  whole  coast  line 
from  Maine  clear  down  to  Texas  and  from  California  to  Washington,  to 
resist  the  British  navy ;  but  the  Lord  looked  after  us,  as  He  does  after 
children  and  drunken  men.     I  hope  those  lessons  have  not  been  lost. 

But  McKinley  knew  how  unprepared  we  were,  even  to  fight  a  power 
equally  unprepared  as  Spain  was,  and  so  he  used  all  his  influence  with 
Congress  to  put  off,  and  I  think  in  his  heart,  if  he  could,  to  avoid  the 
war  with  Spain,  and  he  only  let  it  come  on  when  he  could  not  prevent 
the  onrush.  When  it  became  necessary  for  him  to  lead,  then  he  did  lead, 
and  he  led  to  a  purpose. 

Again,  in  the  Boxer  war,  we  were  a  little  better  prepared,  and  we 
entered  into  that  war  with  the  rest  of  the  nations  to  save  the  butchery  of 
our  legations. 

Then  in  the  Spanish  war,  and  that  brings  me  to  that  relation  in  which 
I  knew  President  McKinley  best.  I  was  walking  up  and  down  the  floor 
of  the  consultation  room  of  the  Circuit  Court  of  the  United  States  one 
day  in  February,  1900,  trying  to  dictate  an  opinion — not  one  of  those 
that  got  me  into  trouble  afterward — when  a  boy  came  in  and  handed 
me  a  telegram,  and  it  read  this  wise :  "If  you  have  not  any  other 
engagement  you  would  oblige  me  very  much  if  you  would  call  on  me  in 
Washington  next  week.  Please  let  me  know  the  day."  There  was  not 
any  vacancy  on  the  Supreme  Court  at  that  time  and  I  could  not  imagine 
what  the  occasion  for  that  summons  was,  but  I  went,  and  when  I  entered 
the  cabinet  room  Mr.  McKinley  and  Secretary  Long  of  the  navy  were 
there,  and  Secretary  Root  was  sent  for.  I  said :  "I  came,  Mr.  President, 
in  answer  to  your  telegram.  I  would  like  to  know  the  occasion  for  the 
call."  He  said :  "Well,  judge,  I  would  like  to  have  you  go  to  the  Philip- 
pines." Said  I :  "Mr.  President,  what  do  you  mean  by  'going  to  the 
Philippines?'  "  He  said  :  "We  must  establish  a  government  out  there,  and 
I  would  like  to  have  you  help  me  dp  it."  "But,  Mr.  President,"  I  said, 
"I  am  sorry  you  have  got  the  Philippines.  I  don't  want  them,  and  I 
think  you  ought  to  have  a  man  who  is  in  sj'-mpathy  with  taking  them 
over."  "Well,"  he  said,  "you  don't  want  them  any  less  than  I  do,  but  we 
have  got  them  and  I  think  in  dealing  with  them  I  can  trust  a  man  that 
dJd  not  want  them  in  the  beginning  better  than  I  can  a  man  that  did." 
Well,  you  can  readily  understand  the  feeling  of  a  man  whose  only  ambition 
was  to  go  to  W^ashington  and  find  a  cushion  on  a  bench,  to  be  asked  to  go 
10,000  miles  away  from  home.  But  Mr.  Root  came  over  and  between 
him  and  Mr.  McKinley  I  had  a  feeling  when  I  went  out  of  that  room'^ 


67 

that  if  there  was  another  vote  in  favor  of  that  thing-,  that  vote  being  east 
by  one  who  is  denied  suffrage  at  home,  but  who  exercises  equal  power, 
that  I  would  probably  go  to  the  Philippines  with  her,  and  I  did.  I  went 
there  under  the  influence  of  William  McKinley's  wonderful  personality  in 
making  people  do  what  he  thought  they  ought  to  do  in  the  interest  of 
the  public.  He  said  to  me :  "Now,  I  am  going  to  stand  by  you  out  there. 
You  will  be  criticized.  You  will  have  a  great  deal  of  trouble  on  the  one 
hand  and  the  other,  but  I  am  going  to  stand  by  you,  and  I  am  going  to 
appoint  or  allow  you  to  appoint  anybod}'  out  there  in  that  government 
that  you  think  will  serve  you  well,  and  you  will  not  get  a  single  man 
appointed  by  me  or  through  the  influence  of  Washington  on  political 
grounds.  I  want  you  to  understand  that  we  know  what  that  business  is 
out  there  and  that  we  are  going  to  support  you."     And  he  did. 

After  we  had  a  government  established  there,  there  were  a  great 
man}-  patriots  in  Washington  who  thought  .the  people  at  home,  whom 
they  knew,  who  had  not  succeeded  very  well  at  home,  might  develop  won- 
derful abilities  if  you  could  only  get  them  10,000  miles  away  from  home. 
They  would  come  to  Major  McKinlej-  and  suggest  it.  I  know  this  because 
it  happened  several  times.  They  would  say :  ''Well,  I  have  got  a  man 
who  will  make  you  an  excellent  judge  in  the  Philippines ;  he  is  not  the 
kind  of  a  man  to  get  a  good  practice  at  home ;  I  have  understood  he  is 
a  first-class  lawyer  and  some  of  my  powerful  constituents  would  like  to 
have  him  go."  The  Major  would  say :  "Now,  you  know  I  would  like  to 
accommodate  you ;  you  know  my  feeling  toward  you,  but  I  want  to  state 
a  proposition  to  you.  I  asked  these  five  gentlemen  to  go  out  to  the 
Philippines  to  do  the  best  they  could  with  something  that  I  know,  and 
what  they  thought,  was  a  very  difficult  job,  and  I  agreed  with  them  that 
I  would  not  appoint  a  single  man  except  on  their  recommendation.  Now 
you  would  not  ask  me  to  go  back  on  that  promise."  Each  time  the  man 
went  away  feeling  that  there  was  some  reason  that  distinguished  the 
Philippines  from  other  parts  of  the  country  and  that  possibly  the  merits 
of  his  friend  ought  to  be  tried  out  nearer  at  home. 

There  is  one  thing  about  good  nature  and  sweetness  of  temper ;  they 
are  given  by  Providence,  but  they  depend  a  good  deal  on  the  digestion. 
Major  McKinley's  good  nature  and  sweetness  of  temper  went  much  fur- 
ther than  that  acquiescence,  that  mere  indisposition  to  make  a  fuss  in 
things  that  are,  because  one  is  perhaps  a  little  too  lazy,  it  was  an  affirma- 
tive sweetness.  He  was  always  thoughtful,  as  his  cabinet  officers  can 
testify ;  he  was  always  inquiring  as  to  the  members  of  their  families ;  he 
was  always  sending  a  little  tribute  to  this  one  or  that  one.  It  never  was 
that  he  did  not  have  always  in  his  mind  the  making  happier,  the  smooth- 
ing out  of  life  for  those  who  came  under  his  influence,  for  those  for 
whom  in  a  sense  he  v^as  responsible.  That  is  what  tact  is,  and  he  had 
tact  in  a  more  wonderful  degree  than  any  man  I  ever  knew. 

I  was  going  on  to-night  even  in  the  presence  of  Mr.  Carnegie  to 
speak  of  the  Philippine  problem  and  his  views  in  respect  to  it,  but 
Brother  Carnegie  and  I  differ  on  the  Philippine  problem.  McKinley's 
idea,  and  it  is  his  idea  that  we  have  been  carrying  out,  was  that  we 
should  go  out  there  and,  to  use  his  own  expression,  carry  out  a  policy 


58 

of  "benevolent  assimilation."  That  has  been  made  the  basis  for  a  great 
deal  of  criticism  and  ridicule,  because  in  order  to  put  those  islands  in  a 
condition  where  that  policy  cr  any  government  indeed  could  be  carried 
out,  we  had  to  fight  a  war  and  we  had  to  bring  about  tranquillity  by 
exercise  of  the  sword.  It  was  a  source  of  great  agony  to  AEcKinley  that 
that  instrumentality  had  to  be  used.  He  had  hoped,  from  the  testimony 
given  at  the  time  of  the  Paris  treaty,  that  it  would  not  be  necessary  o 
do  so.  Ultimately  the  work  was  accomplished  and  to-day  we  are  trying 
to  carry  out  in  every  respect  that  which  McKinley  would  have  had  us 
carry  out  had  he  lived — a  policy  of  the  utmost  interest  in  the  welfare 
of  those  people,  of  an  earnest  desire  to  uplift  them,  and  teach  them  by 
actual  practice  in  partial  self-government  and  by  the  spread  of  education 
among  them,  to  bring  them  up  to  a  point  where  they  shall  be  able  ulti- 
mately to  govern  themselves.  >iow  it  has  been  contended  that  no  nation 
ever  intervened  for  another  nation  to  the  betterment  of  that  nation. 
That  is  a  question  of  argument.  I  think  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  stay 
there  in  order  to  benefit  thoso  people.  Ninety  per  cent,  of  them  to-day— 
7,000,000  out  of  8,000,000 — are  in  a  state  of  Christian  tutelage,  and  are 
densely  ignorant.  In  my  judgment  we  cannot  hope  to  improve  that 
densely  ignorant  part  by  education,  but  only  to  improve  the  next  genera- 
tion or  the  rising  generation  among  them.  They  are  manifesting  a  very 
g-reat  interest  in  education.  It  is  pathetic  to  see  the  desire  of  the  taos, 
as  they  are  called,  the  farming  element,  who  are  unable  to  read  and  write, 
but  who,  nevertheless,  are  sending  their  children  to  school  and  making 
every  effort  and  sacrifice  to  send  them  there  in  order  that  thej^  may  learn 
English  and  learn  the  industrial  education  which  we  are  trying  to  spread 
among  them.  We  are  limited,  of  course,  in  our  resources,  and  limited 
therefore  in  the  extent  to  which  we  can  give  them  the  benefit  of  this  edu- 
cation, but  there  are  to-day  reading,  writing  and  reciting  in  English  in 
those  islands  upwards  of  half  a  million  Filipino  children.  My  own  feel- 
ing is — perhaps  I  am  wrong  in  that — that  the  people  themselves,  as  we 
are  extending  to  them  more  and  more  self-government — we  have  given 
them  now  a  popular  assembly — are  becoming  interested  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  government  and  are  seeking  to  vindicate,  as  far  as  they  may, 
their  growing  capacity  by  making  that  assembly  a  respectable  body.  It 
is  a  burden  on  us.  It  will  continue  to' be  a  burden  on  us,  of  perhaps  from 
five  millions  to  ten  millions  annually,  but  my  idea  is  with  respect  to  that, 
and  it  was  the  idea  of  President  McKinley,  for  we  all  took  our  ideas  with 
respect  to  the  Philippines  from  him,  that  where  Providence  has  thrust 
upon  us  a  people  like  that,  we  are  just  as  much  charged  with  aiding  them 
in  the  best  way  possible  as  a  man  upon  whom  Providence  has  conferred 
fortune  in  a  community  properly  feels  himself  charged  to  help  the 
helpless  and  the  unfortunate.  The  experiment  we  are  trying  is  an  experi- 
ment. I  am  not  speaking  with  the  confidence  and  certainty  of  a  man 
who  knows  that  we  arc  going  to  be  successful,  but  I  am  speaking  with 
the  confidence  that  comes  from  having  watched  that  progress  in  the 
movement  that  we  are  carrying  on  there.  The  whole  success  must  depend 
on  our  good  faith  in  carrying  out  an  altruistic  policy  in  holding  those 
islands  for  the  benefit  of  the  Filipinos.     The  moment  we  allow   selfish 


59 

reasons  and  motives  of  exploitation  to  enter  into  our  treament  of  those 
islands,  and  deny  those  people  in  any  way  that  which  they  are  entitled 
to,  and  benefit  ourselves  at  their  expense,  then  we  have  departed  from 
the  faith  and  we  have  destroyed  the  premises  upon  which  William  Mc- 
Kinley  based  his  judgment  that  that  experiment  was  one  which,  under  the 
providence  of  God,  we  were  obliged  to  undertake,  and  one  which  he 
believed  we  could  carry  to  success. 


REMARKS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  LOYAL  LEGION  CONVEN- 
TION, MASONIC  TEMPLE,   CINCINNATI,   OHIO,   MAY   3,    1910. 

My  Friends  : — It  seems  to  me  I  have  enjoyed  to-day  almost  more 
than  any  other  day  of  my  life.  Coming  back  here  for  only  a  few  hours, 
it  has  been  given  to  me  to  see  a  great  many  of  those  who  were  near 
and  dear  to  me  in  years  gone  by,  and  who  only  grow  dearer  as  the  years 
go  on. 

It  is  a  great  pleasure  for  me  to  come  here  and  see  among  these — 
I  hope  General  Grosvenor  will  forgive  me  if  I  say  "grizzled" — faces, 
friends  of  mine  of  years,  I  suppose — indeed,  it  is  natural — that  those 
of  you  who  are  veterans  should  think  it  a  little  strange  that  the  Com- 
mander-in-Chief of  the  Armj^  and  Navy  never  smelt  gunpowder.  But, 
as  the  Chairman  sajs,  I  was  born  in  1857,  and  when  the  Spanish  War 
came  on  I  am  afraid  I  could  not  have  been  admitted  on  account  of  my 
weight.  So  you  will  have  to  take  me  just  as  a  civilian,  with  an  intense 
interest,  however,  in  all  that  has  gone  to  make  this  country  great  and 
in  those  wars  which  have  been  the  evidence  of  deep-seated  patriotism, 
and  a  willingness  to  make  the  utmost  sacrifice  to  save  the  country  and 
to  make  her  great. 

This  Commandery,  as  I  understand  it,  has  a  great  many  distinguished 
men  in  it.  Ohio,  in  the  war,  was  certainly  remarkable  for  the  com- 
manders which  she  furnished  to  the  Union  Army,  and  the  pictures  that 
I  see  about  me  here  confirm  that  judgment. 

It  is  a  pleasure  to  come  back  to  one's  home,  especially  when  you 
have  been  in  Washington  and  have  been  gently  chided  for  your  short- 
comings, and  to  snuggle  up  close  to  those  who  are  fond  of  you  and 
who  have  a  respect  for  you  whatever  happens,  and  who  believe  that, 
however  great  the  obstacles  and  however  severe  in  other  parts  of  the 
country  they  may  be,  you  are  doing  the  best  you  can. 

Now,  my  friends,  j'ou  veterans  are  not  the  only  ones  who  have 
gray  hair  and  bald  heads.  We  are  all  getting  in  that  condition.  We 
are  all  getting  beyond  the  time  when  we  can  call  ourselves  young.  The 
truth  is,  as  time  goes  on,  it  seems  to  wipe  out  the  difference  that  10 
and  15  and  20  years  make ;  and  those  who,  by  reason  of  strength,  can 
continue  on  are  just  about  as  young  as — and  perhaps  a  little  younger — 
than  those  of  us  who  really  came  later  on,  but  still  give  evidence  of 
the  coming  of  years. 

I  assume  that  there  is  no  association  that  is  closer — none  that  you 
cherish  with  greater  fondness — than  that  of  the  comradeship  of  arms. 


GO 

The  fact  that  during-  four  years  you  were  all  exposed  to  the  same 
dinger,  were  all  fighting-  for  the  same  government,  and  inspired  with 
the  same  feeling  of  patriotism,  brings  you  together  in  a  way  that  those 
of  us  who  have  not  had  that  experience  hardly  understand  the  bond.  And. 
I  congratulate  you  that  into  your  lives  has  entered  that  element  that 
has  made  life  sweeter  to  you,  and  that  is,  I  hope,  a  reward  for  the 
sacrifices  that  you  have  made.  I  thank  you,  my  dear  friends,  for  your 
very  cordial  reception. 


KEMAKKS  OF  Pl^ESfDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  BEDFORD  PRESBYTERIAN 
CHURCH,  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y.,  JUNE  8,  1911. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — As  I  look  at  these  faces 
here  and  go  about  the  streets  of  Brooklyn,  I  am  sincerely  sorry  that  I 
haven't  in  my  life  the  sweet  traditions  that  must  have  grown  up  in 
the  life  of  every  Brooklyn  man  over  these  annual  Sunday  School  obser- 
vances. It  must  be  one  to  which  you  all  cling.  It  must  be  the  basis 
for  enthusiasm  in  your  schools.  It  is  a  thing  that  you  never  will 
give  up  because  its  advantage  grows  on  you  each  year. 

Now,  with  respect  to  Sunday  Schools,  there  are  a  great  many  reasons 
why  you  should  attend'  them ;  biit  I  would  speak  to  the  young  men  and  the 
young  women  who  are  old  enough  to  understand  the  importance  of  lit- 
erature and  history,  and  I  would  urge  upon  them  the  necessity  for  close 
attention  to  the  lessons  that  are  learned  and  taught  in  Sunday  Schools, 
the  study  of  the  Bible,  the  study  of  the  history  of  the  people,  the 
study  of  its  literature — all  those  things  will  form  in  future  life  a  wealth 
of  possession  for  you  that  you  can  not  now  at  your  present  age  under- 
stand. The  men  who  speak  with  most  telling  effect  are  those  who  are 
able  to  command  illustrations  from  Holy  Writ,  who  are  familiar  with 
the  stories  of  Holy  Writ,  and  who  can  tell  them  to  their  audiences.  They 
are  the  ones  who  understand  the  force  of  that  Book.  And  it  is  in  Sun- 
day School  where  you  get  the  opportunity  that  you  will  never  have  again 
in  your  busy  lives  to  familiarize  yourselves  with  the  history  that  it 
teaches,  with  its  literature,  and  with  its  lessons. 

I  do  not  mean  to  say,  and  I  should  be  lacking  in  appreciation  if  1 
did  say  it,  that  that  was  the  chief  benefit  from  Sunday  School  experi- 
ence. Of  course,  the  great  one  is  the  laying  of  the  foundation  of  a 
moral  and  religious  character.  But  to  the  older  students,  the  young 
men  and  the  young  women,  this  is  something  that  I  would  impress  upon 
them,  because  they  will  realize  before  they  grow  much  older,  the  oppor- 
tunities that  they  lost  if  they  have  not  studied  well  that  Book  which  is 
the  Book  of  all  others  in  Sunday  School  education. 

I  thank  you,  my  dear  boys  and  girls,  for  listening  to  me  thus  much 
without  paying  attention  to  anything  else,  but  I  am  afraid  I  haven't  the 
talent  of  the  Sunday  School  teacher  to  keep  your  attention  longer.  Good- 
bye and  God  bless  you ! 


61 


ADDRESS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  AT  A  MASS  MEETING  IN  CELEBRA- 
TION OF  THE  DIAMOND  JUBILEE  OF  MBTHODIST  EPISCOPAL 
MISSIONS  IN  AFRICxV,  AT  CARNEGIE  HALL,  NEW  YORK  CITY, 
DECEMBER   13,   1909. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — I  am  very  glad  to  be  here  to  bear  witness 
to  my  very  great  interest  in  that  which  this  meeting  celebrates — the 
attack  of  the  Methodist  Church  upon  Africa.  I  like  to  think  of  Meth- 
odism among  the  denominations  as  an  affirmative,  aggressive,  pushing, 
practical  church  militant,  and  it  needed  to  be  that  to  tackle  Africa. 
Since  I  have  had  the  honor  to  occupy  public  office,  it  has  fallen  to  me 
to  address  meetings  of  many  different  churches,  and  I  always  seize 
the  opportunity,  when  invited  to  any  other  church  than  my  own,  and  I 
hope  I  don't  leave  out  my  own,  to  be  present,  because  I  like  to  feel 
and  imbibe  in  my  nature  the  sense  of  tolerance  and  increase  in  the 
feeling  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the  Brotherhood  of  Man  among  all 
the  denominations  of  the  churches ;  and  my  own  reception  by  churches, 
not  my  own,  makes  me  feel  certian  of  the  growing  and  wide  cath- 
olicity of  the  Christian  Church.  Doubtless  it  is  because  I  was  not  aroused 
to  the  importance  of  the  missionary  spirit,  and  the  great  things  that 
were  being  done  years  ago,  that  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  only  within 
recent  times  that  this  missionary  feeling  has  taken  such  a  hold  upon 
the   people. 

I  have  observed  that  each  man  dates  the  spread  of  public  opinion 
on  a  particular  subject  from  the  time  that  he  began  to  think  of  it; 
but  the  history  of  our  country  does  offer  a  date  and  an  epoch  when 
it  seems  to  me  that  the  people  of  the  United  States  acquired  a  wider 
and  a  world  feeling,  and  an  interest  and  a  responsibility  for  all  the 
people  of  the  world,  as  distinguished  from  those  who  enjoy  our  oppor- 
tunities of  living  under  the  Stars  and  Stripes. 

It  is  not  perhaps  appropriate  to  date  a  religious  movement  from  a 
war,  but  it  does  seem  to  me  as  if  our  people  acquired  a  world  feeling 
from  the  time  we  undertook  the  responsibility  of  freeing  Cuba  and 
saying  what  should  be  done  by  our  neighbors  with  reference  to  internal 
government  when  that  internal  government  seemed  to  us  to  pass  the 
bounds  of  what  we  thought  to  be  civilized.  We  began  our  war  expect- 
ing to  finish  it  shortly,  and  we  landed  in  the  Philippines  and  we  are 
still  there.  But  our  horizon  has  widened  much  beyond  those  gems  of 
the  Pacific  Ocean  by  reason  of  the  responsibilities  which  we  have  been 
obliged  to  assume  with  reference  to  the  entire  world.  We  are  a  great 
power  in  the  world,  and  we  may  be,  and  I  hope  we  are,  a  great  power 
for  usefulness,  a  great  power  for  the  spread  of  Christian  civilization. 
We  must  be  so  if  we  would  justify,  our  success  and  vindicate  our  right 
to  enjoy  the  opportunities  that  God  has  given  us  in  this  fair,  broad  land 
of  building  of  wealth  and  comfort  and  luxury  and  education  and  making 
ourselves,  what  we  like  to  think  we  are,  the  foremost  people  of  the 
world. 

There  are  those  who  would  read  the  last  words  of  Washington 
in  his  Fa-rewell  Message  as  an  indication  that  we  ought  to  keep  within 


G2 

the  seas  and  not  look  beyond ;  but  he  was  addressing-  thirteen  States 
that  had  much  to  do  before  they  could  make  themselves  a  g-reat  nation 
and  that  might  well  avoid  entang-ling  alliances,  or  any  foreign  inter- 
ference, or  any  foreign  trouble,  while  they  were  making  themselves  a 
nation. 

But  now  we  are  a  nation  with  tremendous  power  and  tremendous 
wealth,  and  unless  we  use  that  for  the  beneflt  of  our  international  neigh- 
bors (and  they  are  all  neighbors  of  ours,  for  the  world  is  very  small) 
unless  we  use  that  power  and  that  wealth,  we  are  failing  to  discharge 
the  duties  that  we  ought  to  feel  as  members  of  the  international  com- 
munity. This  world  is  very  small.  It  is  only  10,000  miles  to  the  Philip- 
pines, and  I  am  carried  back,  as  I  look  into  the  face  of  my  brother, 
Homer  Stuntz,  to  many  a  platform  that  he  and  I  sat  upon  in  the  Philip- 
pines and  talked  about  the  possibilities  of  what  we  might  do  in  de- 
veloping those  islands  and  bringing  those  people  to  a  realization  of  what 
good  government  was.  I  ut  it  is  true  that  when  you  live  in  the  Philip- 
pines, 10,000  miles  away  from  here,  and  meet  people  coming  and  going, 
see  people  on  the  streets  of  Washington  that  you  met  in  Mindanao, 
or  in  Luzon,  or  in  Panay,  or  in  Iloilo,  and  shake  hands  with  them  as  if 
it  were  only  yesterday  when  you  last  saw  them,  the  world  does  not 
seem  very  wide  around.  And  so  I  can  understand,  though  I  don't  quite 
have  the  feeling,  that  Africa  is  not  so  dark,  is  not  so  far  away  from 
anything  that  one  would  wish  to  be  in  when  your  interest  is  excited, 
when  your  knowledge  is  full  of  the  needs  of  the  160,000,000  of  people 
who  are  in  that  continent,  and  of  the  possibilities  of  developing  them 
into  a  Christian  people  who  shall  learn  after  a  time  all  the  arts  of 
peace,  and  learn  to  govern  themselves. 

I  confess,  if  I  were  a  missionary,  I  would  prefer  to  try  my  hand  in 
a  country  like  China  that  has  a  history  of  two  or  three  or  four  or 
five  thousand  years,  than  to  go  into  Africa  that  hasn't  any  history  at  all 
except  that  which  we  trace  to  the  apes.  But  you  can  not  read  the  account 
of  the  missions  that  your  church  is  carrying  on  in  that  continent  without 
knowing  that  there  is  the  seed  which  is  to  lead  those  people  on  to  be 
useful  citizens  and  useful  members  of  the  community  and  of  the  world. 
Now,  as  I  understand  it,  the  Methodist  Church  has  taken  the  continent 
in  front  and  rear  at  Madeira,  at  Algiers,  in  Areola,  in  Portuguese  East 
Africa,  and  in  Rhodesia,  and  that  there  are  missions  and  a  stream  of 
them  in  which  the  practical,  sensible  methods  of  modern  missionaries 
have  been  adopted,  and  accompanying  instruction  in  the  Christian  religion 
and  the  leading  on  to  Christian  civilization,  of  lessons  in  agriculture,  in 
the  simple  mechanical  arts,  in  primary  education,  a^nd  in  lea  ling  them 
on  to  feel  that  debt  of  gratitude  which  reaches  a  native's  heart  as  noth- 
ing else  can,  the  ministrations  of  the  physician  when  the  dear  ones  of 
those  native  savages  seem  about  to  be  taken  away. 

The  mission  is  a  nucleus,  an  epitome,  of  the  civilization  that  is  ex- 
pected to  widen  out  in  that  neighborhood.  I  have  heard  missions  criti- 
cised. I  have  heard  men  say  that  they  would  not  contribute  to  foreign 
missions  at  all ;  that  w^e  had  wicked  people  enough  at  home  and  we  might 
just  as  well  leave  the  foreign  natives  and  savages   to   pursue  their   own 


G3 

happy  lives  in  the  forests  and  look  after  our  own  who  need  a  great  deal 
of  ministration.  I  have  come  to  rei>-ard  that  as  narrow-minded  as  a  man 
who  does  not  like  music,  who  does  not  understand  the  things  that  God 
has  provided  for  the  elevation  of  the  human  race.  The  missionaries  in 
China  and  the  missionaries  in  Africa  are  the  forerunners  of  our  civiliza- 
tion, and  without  them  we  should  have  no  hope  of  conquering  the  love 
and  the  admiration  and  the  respect  of  the  millions  of  people  that  we 
hope  to  bring  under  the  influence  of   Christian  civilization. 

A  man  who  goes  into  Africa  as  a  missionary  goes  into  a  place  where 
he  must  be  content  to  put  up  with  all  sorts  of  sacrifices  and  a  very  pos- 
sible death  from  the  malignant  fevers  that  he  is  constantly  exposed  to, 
unless  he  goes  clear  into  the  interior  on  to  the  table  lands.  I  admire  the 
missionaries  who  go  to  India  and  China  and  the  Philippines,  because  I 
know  they  are  doing  good  work,  and  I  know  that  they  have  many  sacri- 
fices to  make ;  but  the  men  whom  I  wish  most  to  commend  are  those 
who  in  the  face  of  all  obstacles  that  certainly  tend  to  discourage  the 
bravest,  enter  the  dark  continent  of  Africa  in  an  attempt  to  win  these 
people  to  Christianity  and  civilization. 

It  is  curious  to  see  how  the  Almighty  works  His  ways.  Our  interest 
iii  Africa  for  many  years  was  the  interest  to  suppress  the  slave  trade. 
W'e  were  all  responsible — New  England  got  out  of  it  a  little  earlier  than 
tt»e  rest — for  a  time  in  the  encouragement  of  that  trade.  And  now  we 
have  living  with  us  ten  millions  of  people  who  are  descended  from  the 
sla\es  that  were  taken  by  force — the  negroes  that  were  taken  by  force 
from  that  dark  continent,  taken  with  all  the  cruelties  incident  to  the 
miuvije  passage ;  and  yet  no  one  would  say  that  the  descendants  of  those 
people  thus  brought  here  are  not  to  be  congratulated  on  the  fact  that 
their  ancestors  were  brought  here,  so  that  they  have  been  able  to  enjoy 
the  proximity  to  civilization,  so  that  they  are  a  hundred  years  in  advance 
of  their  relatives  in  Africa ;  and  yet  they  came  here  by  the  greed  and  the 
sin  of  those  for  whom  we,  by  reason  of  ancestry,  must  be  responsible.  I 
think  that  is  a  very  curious  working  out  of  the  ways  of  God  that  no  one 
could  have  anticipated.  It  is  natural  that  the  negroes  of  America,  who 
have  had  the  advantage  of  an  association  in  a  Christian  country,  with 
modern  civilization,  so  that  they  are  civilized  and  educated,  should  yet 
retain  an  intense  interest  in  the  development  of  the  continent  from  which 
their  ancestors  came ;  and  I  am  glad  to  note  the  fact  that  there  is  an 
interest  among  the  race,  both  as  to  Liberia  and  the  maintenance  of  that 
Eepublic,  and  this  missionary  movement  through  the  dark  continent,  to 
bring  all  the  black  races  into  Christian  civilization. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  have  a  cold.  I  ought  not  to  have  spoken  at  all 
to-night,  because  I  haven't  any  information  about  Africa  that  you  haven't 
got ;  but  I  have  got  into  the  habit  of  speaking  at  foreign  mission  meet- 
ings, and  the  managers  of  the  meetings  think  that  there  is  something 
missing  in  the  support  of  the  government  unless  I  appear  to  testify  in  my 
insufficient  and  inadequate  way  to  the  interest  that  the  country  all  has 
in  the  success  of  this  movement.  Now,  my  dear  friend.  Bishop  Ilartzell, 
I  hoi)e  has  realized  what  he  came  here  to  bring  about,  and  I  hope  he  will 
take  back  in  his  pocket  that  $300,000  that  is  necessary  to  aid  him  in  tlxe 


64 

f^reat  work  he  is  there  carrying  on.  I  wish  he  had  $3,000,000  instead  of 
$300,000,  but  H  is  a  g-ood  deal  easier  to  wish  it  than  to  get  it ;  and  if  we 
have  gotten  $300,000,  we  ought  to  be  as  smiling  and  as  happy  in  the 
thought  of  the  good  that  will  do  as  possible. 


REMARKS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  BANQUET  OF  THE  CON- 
STITUTION GRAND  LODGE.  INDEPENDENT  ORDER  OF  B'NAI 
B'RITH,  ARLINGTON  HOTEL,  WASHINGTON,  D.  C,  APRIL  6,  1910. 

Me.  Chairman,  Me.  Toastmastee,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
B'nai  B'eith  : — It  is  a  great  x^lG^-sure  to  be  here  and  to  welcome  to 
Washington  so  important  a  society.  We  haven't  any  Mayor  in  Wash- 
ington. We  only  have  a  District  Commission,  and  so  the  President  is 
drafted  in  to  act  the  part  of  a  Mayor  at  Washington.  I  am  not  here  to 
make  a  speech.  I  am  only  here  to  try  and  make  you  welcome  in  the 
National  Capital. 

We  have  great  plans  for  Wanjhington,  and  I  hojie  they  will  develop. 
Certainly  there  is  ev«ry  prospect  that  the  beauty  of  the  city  will  con- 
tinue to  grow.  Those  of  you  who  have  been  in  the  wilder  plates  about 
Washington  will  understand  the  opportanity  that  there  is  for  develop- 
ment. I  am,  with  respect  to  Washington,  at  least,  an  expansionist.  I 
wish  that  our  neighbor,  Virginia,  would  give  back  those  few  square  miles 
that,  in  the  younger  daj^s  of  the  Republic,  when  we  were  not  as  wise  as 
we  are  now  and  had  a  Cong'ress  that  was  narrow-minded,  we  retroceded 
to  Virginia  that  part  of  the  ten  miles  square  that  Virginia  had  given 
us ;  but  Virginians,  like  their  Virginian  ancestors,  like  real  estate,  and 
they  are  rather  loath  to  give  back  that  which  once  was  ours,  and  which 
we,  as  I  say,  in  a  fit  of  absent-mindedness  and  of  a  narrow  view  of  our 
future,  allowed  them  to  take  back.  If  we  had  it  here  now,  with  the 
beautiful  bank  of  the  Potomac  on  the  other  side,  we  could  construct  a 
park  there  that  would  be  becoming  in  dignity  to  the  National  Capital. 

We  have  below  here — and  if  you  rode  horseback  I  would  be  glad  to 
take  you  down  and  show  j'-ou — an  island  nearly  two  miles  long  and  from 
a  half  to  three-quarters  of  a  mile  wide,  immediately  at  the  door  of  the 
city,  which,  added  to  the  Potomac  Park  that  we  now  have,  will  make  one 
of  the  finest  drives  and  finest  parks  in  the  world.  We  now  have  appro- 
priations from  Congress  to  proced  to  fill  up,  to  kill  all  the  mosquitoes 
that  are  generated  there,  and  to  make  it  worthy  of  the  surroundings, 
with  that  magnificent  monument  to  the  Father  of  the  Country  presiding 
over  it  all. 

I  didn't  come  here  to  make  a  speech  about  Washington.  I  came  here 
only  to  w^elcome  you  to  Washington.  I  have  known  the  B'nai  B'rith  long, 
for  its  good  works,  for  the  social  opportunities  that  it  gives,  and  as  a 
model  Jewish  Society.  When  I  say  a  model  Jewish  society,  I  mean  a 
society  that  may  be  a  model  for  all  societies. 


65 

Kow,  I  have  the  profoimdest  admiration  for  the  Jewish  race.  They 
make  excellent  citizens.  They  ^re  in  favor  of  law  and  order  always.  I 
am  glad  to  have  them  come  to  this  country.  I  have  known  those  who 
have  been  in  the  country  as  long  as  I  have,  and  therefore  are  just  as 
much  American  as  I  am.  I  have  also  bod  the  privilege  of  knowing  those 
who  have  come  but  recently,  and  I  have  always  found  in  them  the  pro- 
foundest  appreciation  of  our  institutions  of  liberty,  the  profoundest  ap- 
preciation of  our  educational  facilities,  and  their  ability  generally,  what 
seems  to  those  of  us  who  have  sons  and  daughters  in  competition  in  the 
schools,  to  stand  first  in  their  classes. 

Now,  my  friends,  I  had  not  intended  to  say  so  much,  but  if  in  what 
1  have  said  I  have  conveyed  to  you  my  high  appreciation  of  the  race 
that  you  represent — the  oldest  race  in  the  world — that  people  who  are 
entitled  really  to  be  the  aristoci;ats  of  the  world,  and  yet  who  make  the 
best  Republicans,  I  have  succeeded  in  what  I  hoped  to  do. 


REMARKS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  TOMPKINS  AVENUE  CON- 
GREGATIONAL CHURCH,  BROOKLYN,  N.  Y.,  JUNE  8,  1911. 

My  dear  Boys  and  Girls  : — I  feel  just  as  if  I  were  a  boy  or  a  girl 
myself,  aJx)ut  to  make  a  recitation  in  a  Sunday  School  without  having 
studied  the  lesson.  It  is  a  great  pleasure  to  look  into  your  faces  and  to 
see  how  you  are  enjoying  this  afternoon.  I  hope  you  like  your  Sunday 
Schools.  I  hope  your  mother  or  your  father  doesn't  have  to  exert  herself 
or  himself — doesn't  have  to  push  you  to  school.  Does  she?  (Voices, 
"No.")  You  go  without  it,  don't  you?  (Voices,  "Yes.")  I  am  glad  that 
is  the  case  in  Brooklyn.  I  am  afraid  there  are  some  cities  where  it  is 
not  always  the  case. 

But  this  kind  of  a  celebration — this  making  much  of  the  Sunday 
Sehool,  as  it  ought  to  be  made  much  of,  make«  the  Sunday  School  popu- 
lar ;  makes  it  a  place  that  boys  and  girls  love  to  go  to,  where  they  learn 
the  lessons  of  the  Bible,  learn  of  God  and  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  learn,  I 
hope,  to  be  g-ood  boys  and  girls  ju^  because  they  know  it  is  good  to  be 
good. 

I  never  talk  to  a  Sunday  School  now.  I  used  to  talk  in  a  Sunday 
School  when  I  was  a  member  of  one,  and  I  think  I  know  more  how  k  boy 
or  a  girl  feels  in  a  Sunday  School  than  I  know  how  a  teacher  feels. 

It  is  a  moment  to  me  of  exhilaration  to  see  these  young  faces,  and 
to  feel  that  they  are  instinct  with  an  interest  in  this  occasion  that  is 
certain  to  make  them  recollect  it  and  certain  to  do  them^-T-ood. 

God  bless  you,  my  dear  boys  and  girls !  God  bless  you !  I  know 
you  are  going  to  grow  up  to  be  good  men  and  women,  and  to  make  this 
country  better  1 


6G 


ADDEESS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  BEFORE  THE  CHRISTIAN  EN- 
DEAVOR CONVENTION,  AT  YOUNG'S  PIER,  ATLANTIC  CITY,  N. 
J.,  JULY  7,   1911. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Members  of  the  Christian  Endeavor,  Ladies  and 
Gentlemen  : — As  I  stand  upon  this  platform  I  am  conscions  of  being-  in 
the  presence  of  a  religions  force  for  progress  and  good  in  the  world 
that  had  its  genesis  nearly  30  years  ago,  and  now  is  making  its  in- 
fluence felt  completely  around  the  world,  and  through  the  expression 
and  activity  of  4,000,000  living  souls. 

This  convention  commemorates  the  organization  of  a  movement 
based  upon  the  principle  that  the  time  to  influence  men  and  women 
in  their  lives  is  in  that  formative  period  between  youth  and  manhood, 
and  that  the  making  of  the  character  of  men  and  women  is  best 
achieved  by  training  and  practice,  rather  than  by  instruction  and  preach- 
ing. By  insistence  upon  opeft  confession  of  religious  faith  and  the  bring- 
ing forth  of  works  needful  for  the  expression  of  that  faith  and  in  the 
fellowship  which  follows  a  common  confession  and  works,  the  Christian 
Endeavor  has  made  its  mark  in  the  religious  history  of  the  world. 

But  I  did  not  come  here  to  discuss  before  an  audience  that  knows 
them  very  much  better  than  I  the  principles  upon  which  your  society 
is  founded  and  the  methods  by  which  these  principles  have  been  em- 
bodied in  the  present  glorious  and  useful  development.  I  may  take  one 
sentence  to  express  my  profound  and  sincere  admiration  for  Dr.  Clark 
and  his  estimable  wife,  the  founders  of  this  society,  who  have  lived 
long  enough  to  see  it  grow  from  one  small  organization  in  Williston, 
Maine,  to  a  world  power  for  good;  and,  as  the  Chief  Magistra,te  of  this 
country,  to  recognize  the  debt  it  owes  for  their  work  and  especially  in 
the  development  of  individual  Christian  character  among  the  members 
of  the  Evangelical  Protestant  churches  of  this  country.  Such  a  move- 
ment can  not  but  have  the  most  beneficial  effect  upon  the  citizenship 
of  a  nation  like  this,  and  I  should  be  lacking  in  appreciation  of  these 
currents  of  popular  reform  and  individual  uplift  if  I  did  not  seize  such 
an  opportunity  to  pay  a  just  tribute  to  those  who  have  deserved  so  well 
of  the  Republic ;  for  while  this  country  has  no  state  church,  and  en- 
courages the  utmost  freedom  of  religious  belief  and  practice,  it  is  a 
fundamental  error  to  suppose  that  those  who  are  responsible  in  any  de- 
gree for  the  public  welfare  may  not  in  every  proper  way  encourage  all 
instrumentalities  for  the  betterment  of  the  individiial  man,  all  moral 
and  religious  movements  ft)r  his  higher  spiritual  welfare,  without  re- 
gard to  the  denominational  jurisdiction  in  which  such  movements  take 
their  source  or  exercise  their  influence.  They  necessarily  tend  to  a 
leaven  of  the  whole  community  and  to  the  righteousness  that  exalteth 
a  nation. 

But,  as  I  say,  I  did  not  come  here  to  tell  you  about  your  own  or- 
ganization. T  came  here  to  talk  on  a  subject  and  cause  in  which  I  have, 
in  common  with  all  the  civilized  people  of  the  world,  an  intense  in- 
terest, and  that  is  the  avoidance  of  war  by  providing  such  instrumental- 


67 

ities   for   t-ie   settlement   of   international    controversies   as   to   make   war 
remote  beeaiise  unnecessary. 

*  I    observe    that   in   your    last    convention,    the    Twenty-fourth    Inter- 
national Convention,  one  of  your  resolutions  was  as  follows : 

''Resolved,  That  as  followers  of  the  Prince  of  Peace,  we  ally  our- 
selves with  every  effort  that  is  being-  made  for  the  suppression  of 
war.  The  immense  and  ever-increasing  tax  which  war  and  prepar- 
ations for  war  levy  on  peaceful  industries,  and  the  frightful  hor- 
rors of  war  itself,  demand  that  every  lover  of  God  and  humanity 
should  unite  for  its  suppression." 

In  the  last  25  years  w^e  have  made  great  progress  toward  an  in- 
ternational condition  in  which  war  is  less  likely  than  heretofore.  It 
is  true  that  in  that  time  we  have  had  several  great  wars — the  war  be- 
tween China  and  Japan,  the  war  between  Russia  and  Japan,  the  Vv^ar 
between  the  United  States  and  Spain,  the  war  between  England  and 
the  Boers,  and  perhaps  some  others.  Nevertheless,  as  between  the  great 
countries  of  Europe  which  have  armed  themselves  to  the  teeth  since 
the  German-French  War  of  1870,  peace  has  been  maintained;  and  under 
the  inspiration  of  a  common  desire  for  peace,  treaties  have  been  made 
with  reference  to  arbitration  at  The  Hague,  and  for  the  establishment 
of  a  court  at  The  Hague  for  the  settlement  of  international  disputes, 
and  have  pointed  to  the  ideal  of  the  utmost  use  in  the  promotion  of  the 
cause  of  peace. 

Ey  negotiation  and  mediation,  and  the  formation  of  arbitration 
agreements,  wars  in  the  last  decade  have  been  stopped  in  Central  and 
South  America  in  a  most  gratifying  num.ber  of  instances.  All  wars 
have  not  been  stopped  in  those  counti'ies  lacking  stability  and  power 
to  enforce  law  and  order ;  but  that  there  is  a  marked  improvement 
throughout  Latin  America  in  this  regard,  and  especially  in  Central 
America,  no  one  who  has  consulted  the  statistics  of  revolutions  can 
fail  to  recognize.  The  heroism  and  exhibition  of  the  noblest  qualities 
of  the  heart  and  soul  and  mind  of  man  that  war  makes  possible,  every 
student  of  history  and  of  human  nature  must  admit,  but  that  this  is 
accomplished  with  the  horrible  cost  and  sacrifice  of  human  suffering 
and  lives,  and  that  an  associated  exhibition  of  the  lowest  moral  qual- 
ities in  man,  of  ambition,  lust  for  power,  of  cruelty,  ghoulish  rapacity, 
and  corruption,,  is  equally  true,  and  in  very  few  cases,  if  any,  can  the 
historian  say  that  the  good  of  war  w^as  worth  the  awful  sacrifice.  And 
hence  it  is  that  we  should  all  welcome,  as  far  as  we  can,  the  effort  to 
dispense  with  the  necessity  of  war  altogether.  Even  if  that  effort 
may  not  be  entirely  successful,  every  movement  which  tends  to  dis- 
courage war,  and  to  furnish  a  means  of  avoiding  it,  ought  to  receive 
and  does  receive  the  earnest  support  of  an  organization  that  has  the 
purposes  and  principles  that  actuate  the  Society  of  the  Christian  En- 
deavor. 

I  am  glad  to  say  that  to-day  we  have  reached  such  a  point  in  the 
negotiations  for  a  treaty  of  universal  arbitration  with  one  of  the  great 


European  powers  that  we  can  c;onfidently  predict  the  signing  of  a  satis- 
factory treaty. 

I  am  exceedingly  hopeful  that  we  may  have  half  a  dozen  treaties 
with  the  European  countries  looking  toward  arbitration  of  interna- 
tional differences.  This  will  not  abolish  war,  but  it  will  provide  a  most 
effective  and  forcible  instrument  for  avoiding  it  in  many  cases.  Of 
course,  war  between  Great  Britain  an'd  the  United  States,  between  I'rance 
and  the  United  States,  and  between  Germany  and  the  United  States,  is 
quite  remote ;  but  the  adoption  by  those  great  countries  of  arbitration 
and  mediation  as  a  means  of  meeting  all  controversies  must  have  the 
most  healthy  moral  effect  upon  the  world  at  large  and  must  avSsist  all 
the  friends  of  peace  in  their  effort  to  make  it  permanent.  To  this 
audience,  and  this  great  society  with  its  world-wide  influence,  I  do  not 
hesitate  to  appeal  to  give  the  tremendous  weight  of  its  support  to  such 
a  cause. 


ADDEESS  OF  THE  PRESIDENT  AT  THE  CATHOLIC  SUMMER  SCHOOL 
OF  AMERICA,  AT  CLIFF  HAVEN,  N.  Y.,  JULY  7,  1909. 

Your  Eminence,  Governor  Hughes,  Dr.  McMahon,  and  my  Fellow- 
citizens  OF  the  Catholic  Summer  School  of  America  :— Governor  Hughes 
and  I  are  going  through  these  three  or  four  days  delivering  speeches 
at  each  other,  and  expressing  our  opinion  of  each  other  in  a  way  that 
will  enable  us,  when  we  get  through,  to  do  it  with  greater  facility.  The 
truth  is  that  the  gift  of  eloquence  and  speech  which  Governor  Hughes 
has  needs  no  practice,  but  I  have  to  have  a  little. 

I  would  be  without  that  which  makes  a  man  if  I  did  not  appreciate 
to  the  full  the  kindly  words  of  your  distinguished  Governor,  and  if 
I  did  not  congratulate  the  State  of  New  York  on  having  a  Governor 
who  represents  the  highest  ideals.  One  is  almost  carried  off  his  feet 
before  such  an  audience.  There  is  something  in  the  atmosphere  that 
suggests  a  flying  machine,  as  if  you  were  all  so  full  of  joy  that  that 
element  in  you  could  raise  you  up,  and  that  is  the  way  you  ought  to 
be,  and  I  congratulate  you  that  such  is  the  feeling. 

The  combination  of  work  and  pleasure,  the  cultivation  of  health 
on  the  one  hand  and  of  intellect  on  the  other,  and  of  religious  faith 
above  all  under  such  beautiful  surroundings  is  calculated  to  make  every 
one  enthusiastic,  and  I  share  that  enthusiasm  to  the  full. 

I  am  not  a  Catholic,  but  I  have  had  in  the  last  ten  years  a  great 
deal  to  do  with  the  Catholic  Church.  My  lot  did  not  carry  me  into  a 
part  of  the  world  that  made  me  familiar  with  the  French  explorers, 
the  French  leaders  of  civilization  like  Champlain,  as  it  did  into  the  re- 
gions of  those  leaders  that  came  from  Spain — into  the  Philippines, 
where  the  same  influence  that  carried  Champlain  here  and  the  same  ideal 
that  controlled  him,  controlled  men  equally  brave,  and  in  certain  re- 
spects more  successful.  There  was  Magellan  and  later  Legaspi  who  came 
out  to  the  Philippines  and  with  four  or  five  Augustinian  monks  con- 
verted to   Christianity  that   entire   Archipelago  now  having  some  seven 


69 

or  eight  niillion  souls,  and  then  perhaps  500,000 — the  only  community, 
the  only  j^eople  in  the  entire  Orient  that  to-day  as  a  people  are  Christians. 
There  is  on  the  Luneta,  the  great  public  square  facing  the  otean  in 
Manila,  a  statue  carved  by  a  great  Spanish  sculptor,  Querol,  in  which 
there  are  two  figures,  Legaspi,  holding  the  standard  of  Spain  and  with 
his  sword  drawn,  and  behind  him  Urdenta,  a  RecoUeto  monk,  holding 
aloft  behind  all  the  cross,  and  there  is  in  that  statue  such  movement, 
such  force,  such  courage  that  I  used  to  like,  even  in  the  hot  days  of 
Manila,  to  stand  in  front  of  it  and  enjoy,  as  I  thought  I  got  the  spirit 
that  the  sculptor  had  tried  to  put  in  there,  of  loyalty  to  country  and  faith 
in  God. 

I  think  we  are  reaching  a  point  in  this  country  where  we  are  very 
much  more  tolerant  of  everything  and  everybody  than  in  the  past,  and 
where  we  are  giving  justice  where  justice  oug'ht  to  be  given.  We  are 
no  longer  cherishing  those  narrow  prejudices  that  came  from  denomi- 
national bigotry,  and  we  are  able  to  recognize  in  the  past  those  great 
heroes  of  any  religious  Christian  faith  and  appreciate  the  virtues  they 
exhibited  as  examples  for  us. 

Eeligious  tolerance  is  rather  a  modern  invention.  Those  of  us  of 
Puritan  ancestry  have  been  apt  to  think  that  we  were  the  inventors  of 
religious  tolerance.  Well,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  what  we  were  in  favor 
of,  if  I  can  speak  for  Puritan  ancestry,  was  having  a  right  to  worship 
God  as  we  pleased,  and  having  everybody  else  worship  God  in  the  same 
way.  But  we  have  worked  that  out  now;  and  there  has  been  a  great 
change,  I  am  sure  His  Eminence  the  Cardinal  will  agree  with  me,  even 
in  the  last  twenty-five  years.  I  have  had  personal  evidence  of  it  in  some 
of  the  work  that  we  had  to  do  in  the  Philippines.  Fifty  years  ago  if  it 
had  been  proposed  to  send  a  representative  of  the  Government  to  the 
Vatican  to  negotiate  and  settle  matters  arising  in  a  country  like  the 
Philippines  between  the  Government  and  the  Roman  Catholic  Church, 
it  would  have  given  rise  to  the  severest  condemnation  and  criticism  on 
the  part  of  those  who  "would  have  feared  some  diplomatic  relation  be- 
tween the  Government  and  the  Vatican  contrary  to  our  traditions ;  but 
within  the  last  ten  years  that  has  been  done,  with  the  full  concurrence 
of  all  religious  denominations,  believing  that  the  way  to  do  things  is  to 
do  them  directly,  and  when  a  matter  is  to  be  settled  that  it  should  be 
settled  with  the  head  of  the  church  who  has  authority  to  act.  And  so  it 
fell  to  my  lot,  my  dear  friends,  and  in  that  respect  just  by  good  luck,  1 
came  to  be  an  exception,  which  will  perhaps  stand  for  many  years  as 
the  sole  exception,  of  being  the  representative  of  the  United  States  at 
the  Vatican.  There  I  had  the  great  pleasure  of  meeting  that  distin- 
guished statesnian  and  pontiff,  Leo  XIII,  a  man  of  92,  whom  I  expected 
to  find  rather  a  lay  figure  directed  by  the  council  of  the  Cardinals  than 
one  active  in  control  of  the  Church.  But  I  was  most  pleasantly  disap- 
pointed, for  even  at  92  he  was  able  to  withstand  an  address  of  mine  of 
twenty  minutes,  to  catch  the  points  of  that  address,  and  to  respond  in 
a  speech  of  some  fifteen  minutes,  showing  how  fully  he  appreciated  the 
issue  that  there  was  and  its  importance. 

We  did  not  succeed  in  bringing  about  exactly  the  agreement  which 


70 

we  asked,  and  he  realized  that,  but  he  was  full  of  friendly  enthusiasm 
for  the  settlement  of  the  issne,  and  after  two  audiences  whieh  1  had 
the  honor  of  holding-  with  him,  at  the  close  of  the  second  one  he  said, 
"You  haven't  got  exactly  what  you  want  in  exactly  the  way  yon  want  it, 
but,"  said  he,  "I  am  going  to  send  a  representative  of  mine  to  the  Philip- 
pines with  instructions  to  see  that  the  matter  is  settled  justly  in  accord- 
ance with  the  wishes  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States."  And  it 
was  so  settled.  I  am  gratified  to  say  that  now  every  question  between 
the  Church  and  the  State  in  the  Philippine  Islands,  which  were  so  closely 
united  that  it  seemed  almost  impossible  to  make  a  separation  of  the  two 
as  it  ought  to  be  made  under  our  Constitution,  has  been  settled  fairly 
and  justly  to  both  sides,  and  that  no  bad  taste  or  feeling  of  injustice 
exists  on  either  side  with  respect  to  those  questions. 

And  now,  my  dear  friends,  I  ought  to  talk  about  Champlain,  and  I 
would  talk  something  about  him  because  I  appreciate  as  highly  as  any 
one  can  those  motives  that  governed  him  and  his  high  character  as  a  man 
and  the  obstacles  that  he  had  to  overcome;  but  when  T  get  up  to  talk 
on  any  subject,  I  am  a  little  bit  in  the  attitude  of  the  doctor  who  could 
cure  fits  and  that  is  all  he  could  cure,  and  so  he  wanted  to  throw  his: 
patients  into  that  condition.  I  can  only  talk  about  the  Philippines,  and 
that  is  what  I  have  done,  but  I  hope  they  have  some  a])plication  to  the 
thoughts  of  the  morning. 

I  thank  you,  my  dear  friends,  I  thank  the  reverend  fathers  and  His 
Eminence  the  Cardinal,  for  the  cordial  reception  that  j^ou  have  given  to 
the  civil  head  of  New  York  and  to  the  civil  head  of  the  Nation. 


ADDRESS  OF  THE  PP.ESJDENT  AT  THE  LAYING  OF  THE  COKNER- 
STONE  OF  THE  INGRAM  MEMORIAL  CHURCH  ON  CAPITOL  HILL, 
JULY  11,   1909. 

De.  Fkizzell,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — When  your  minister  came  to 
see  me  in  the  hurry  of  a  busy  morniiig  at  the  White  House,  and  invited 
me  to  attend  the  dedication  ceremonies  of  his  church,  either  he  forgot 
to  tell  me  that  I  was  expected  to  make  a  speech  or  else  there  were  so 
many  matters  pressing  that  I  did  not  catch  that  statement  from  his  lips. 

I  am  glad  to  be  present  at  a  ceremony  beginning  the  usefulness  of 
an  institution  of  religion  as  this  church  will  be.  It  is  a  Congregational 
Church,  and  as  the  minister  says,  comes  from  New  England  by  descent. 
I  likewise  claim  New  England  ancestry.  I  venture  to  think,  however, 
that  the  plan  of  this  church  is  somewhat  different  in  its  method  of 
bringing  men  to  God  and  attracting  men  and  women  to  religion  than 
that  which  was  adopted  by  the  Pilgrim  Fathers  and  those  who  imme- 
diately followed  them.  As  I  recollect  it,  their  idea  was  to  separate  every- 
thing from  religion,  to  clothe  it  with  nothing  externally  beautiful,  and  to 
make  the  service  of  religion  as  severe  as  possible,  so  that  you  can  well 
understand  the  question  of  the  little  boy  who  had  been  subjected  to 
those  very  strict  rules  of  the  Sabbath  day  in  the  Puritan  family  when 


71 

ho  asked  his  mothor  whethei\  when  she  told  him  that  heaven  was  to  b^ 
all  the  Sabbath  day.  he  could  not  go  down  to  hell  and  play  Saturday 
afternoon.  Now  this  church  and  most  churches  have  properly  departed 
from  making  religion  something  severe,  something  in  the  way  of  a  test 
and  a  criminal  trial  to  which  everyone  is  to  be  subjected  to  condemna- 
tion. You  know  the  story  of  the  young  man  and  his  bride  who  began 
life  in  a  city  and  who  found  themselves  confronted  with  the  question 
what  newspaper  they  should  subscribe  to.  The  young  man  described  his 
situation  and  the  trouble  he  found  himself  in  by  saying,  "My  dear,  I  don't 
know  what  to  do.  The  paper  that  is  published  in  the  morning  makes 
vice  so  attractive,  and  the  paper  that  is  published  in  the  afternoon  makes 
virtue  so  unattractive,  that  we  will  have  to  subscribe  to  some  other  paper 
in  some  other  town." 

As  I  understand  the  plan  of  this  church,  it  is  to  make  religion  a  part 
of  the  li^e  of  those  who  are  members  of  the  church.  It  is  to  furnish 
rational  amusement.  It  is  to  make  the  church  so  attractive  by  reason  of 
its  social  qualities,  by  reason  of  offering  an  opportunity  for  physical 
exercise,  for  intellectual  exercise,  that  those  who  are  members  of  it  shall 
regard  religion  as  a  necessary  part  of  life  and  one  which  they  will  wel- 
come as  a  part  of  life,  and  not  which  they  regard  as  something  apart  to 
be  improved  once  every  seven  days  and  then  to  be  taken  in  as  small 
doses  as  possible  and  still  conform  to  the  religious  law.  I  am  glad  to 
know,  to  see  and  to  believe  that  all  churches  in  a  way,  not  so  completely 
as  this  plan  indicates,  are  adopting  the  view  that  there  is  nothing  incon- 
sistent between  religion  and  duty  and  happiness  and  rational  amusement, 
and  that  the  union  of  all  of  them  is  not  something  that  is  repellant  to  the 
real  religious  soul.  But,  my  dear  friends,  I  did  not  expect  to  speak  after 
the  eloquent  address  of  my  friend,  Mr.  Esch,  of  Wisconsin,  who  properly 
was  called  upon  here  to  answer  for  both  of  his  constituents  and  to  answer 
well,  as  he  did.  But  I  want  to  say  one  thing.  This  church  is  established 
in  Washington ;  it  is  well  that  it  is  here ;  it  is  established  upon  Capitol 
Hill.  Now  Washington  contains  the  Government  of  this  country.  I  don't 
mean  the  President  and  the  Cabinet.  I  don't  mean  the  Senate  and  the 
House  of  Representatives ;  but  there  is  something  that  goes  to  make  up 
this  Government  as  a  machine  that  continues  to  operate  when  the  Presi- 
dent goes  to  the  seacoast,  when  the  Senate  and  the  House  go  home  and 
attend  to  their  private  business,  and  when  the  members  of  the  Cabinet 
disappear  in, various  directions  from  this  somewhat  heated  temperature, 
and  that  Government  is  the  Government  of  the  civil  servants — trained 
civil  servants  who  know  how  things  ought  to  be  done,  and  through  whose 
agency  the  Government  will  be  carried  on  from  now  until  the  end  of 
time  as  I  hope ;  a  trained  body  of  civil  servants  who  are  willing  for  a 
very  reasonable  compensation,  sometimes  much  too  low,  to  give  out  what 
is  best  of  them  to  the  carrying  on  of  this  Government  in  an  honest, 
effective  way — men  who  are  philosophers  enough  to  know  that  by  the 
enjoyment  of  a  small  salary,  if  they  rid  themselves  from  the  worry  and 
the  corroding  effect  of  mercenary  ambition,  they  can  get  more  happiness 
out  of  life  in  seeing  their  families  grow,  in  the  education  of  their  chil- 
dren, than  by  aspiring  to  be  millionaires  and  plutocrats.     Now  that  body 


72 

of  men  is  here  in  Washing-ton,  and  1  know  no  better  body  of  men  con- 
stitute a  moving-  force  in  a  church  like  this  than  the  civil  servants  who 
doubtless  live  about  this  vicinity.  I  congratulate  the  minister  on  having 
that  material  out  of  which  to  build  up  the  great  structure  that  doubtless 
will  be  his  when  this  church  is  built  and  when  the  congregation  reaches 
the  proportions  that  it  will  doubtless  reach.  I  congratulate  him  on  the 
auspicious  beginning  of  this  enterprise.  I  congratulate  the  neighborhood 
on  having  an  instrumentality  that  cannot  but  elevate  it  when  it  is  put 
in  force.  And  now,  Dr.  Frizzell,  as  I  am  an  accomplished  mason  I  shall 
be  glad  to  continue. 


ADDRESS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  LAYING  OF  THE  CORNERv- 
STONE  OF  THE  UNIVERSALIST  CHURCH,  IRVINGTON,  PORT- 
LAND, OREGON,  OCTOBER  3,  1909. 

Mb.  Pastor,  Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — I  don't  know 
that  anybody  questions  the  propriety  of  my  attendance  on  this  occasion, 
or  that  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  enter  into  an  explanation.  I  conceive 
it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  welcome  and 
encourage  and  support  every  instrument  by  which  the  standard  of  morals 
and  religion  in  the  community  may  be  elevated  and  maintained.  It  was 
my  pleasure  and  my  opportunity  to  take  part  in  the  dedication  of  an 
orthodox  Congregational  Church  in  Washington  in  the  spring ;  my  pleas- 
ure to  take  part  in  ceremonies  in  a  Jewish  tabernacle  in  Pittsburgh ;  to 
officiate  as  the  layer  of  the  cornerstone  of  a  Roman  Catholic  university 
at  Helena,  and  now  to  take  what  part  I  may  in  the  ceremonies  of  laying 
the  cornerstone  of  a  Universalist  Church  in  this  beautiful  suburb  of  Port- 
land. And  I  do  it  because  I  believe  that  the  cornerstone  of  modern  civili- 
zation must  continue  to  be  religion  and  morality. 

We  have  in  our  Constitution  separated  the  civil  from  the  religious. 
It  was  at  one  time  my  good  fortune  to  visit  Rome  in  order  by  negotiation 
to  effect  a  settlement  of  a  number  of  questions  which  had  arisen  between 
the  Roman  Catholic  Church  and  the  civil  government  in  the  Philippines. 
The  government  of  the  Philippines  under  Spain  had  illustrated  that  system 
known  in  the  Spanish  Government  as  the  Union  of  Church  and  State. 
Their  interests  were  so  inextricably  united  that  it  seemed  almost  impos- 
sible to  separate  them,  but  with  the  consent  and  acquiescence  of  all  denomi- 
nations in  this  country,  I  was  authorized  to  go  to  Rome  to  meet  the  head 
of  the  great  Roman  Catholic  Church,  in  order  to  see  if  amicably  those 
matters  might  not  be  settled.  I  am  glad  to  say  that  the  result  of  the 
visit  was  a  satisfactory  settlement,  equitable  and  just  to  both  sides.  But 
I  started  to  mention  it  in  order  to  relate  that  I  ventured  to  say  to  the 
Pope  that  the  division  between  Church  and  State  in  this  country  and 
their  separation  was  not  in  the  slightest  degree  to  be  taken  as  an  indi- 
cation that  there  was  anything  in  our  Government  or  in  our  people  that 
was  opposed  to  the  church  and  its  highest  development,  and  I  ventured  to 
point  out  that  in  the  United  States  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  had  flour- 


73 

ished  and  grown  as  it  had  not  grown  in  many  European  countries,  and 
that  it  had  received  at  tlie  hands  of  the  Government  as  liberal  and  as 
just  and  as  equal  treatment  as  every  other  church,  no  better  and  no 
worse ;  but  that  that  was  not  to  be  taken  as  an  indication  that  every 
officer  of  the  Government  properly  charged  with  his  responsibility  would 
not  use  all  the  official  influence  that  he  had  to  encourage  the  establish- 
ment of  churches,  their  maintenance  and  the  broadening  of  their  influ- 
ence in  order  that  morality  and  religion  might  prevail  throughout  the 
country. 

This  is  a  Universalist  Church,  known  as  a  liberal  church.  We  havo 
reached  a  time  in  this  country  when  the  churches  are  growing  together ; 
when  they  are  losing  the  bitterness  of  sectarian  dispute ;  that  they  appre- 
ciate that  it  is  necessar}'^,  in  order  that  their  influence  be  felt,  that  they 
stand  shoulder  to  shoulder  in  the  contest  for  righteousness.  They  believe 
in  the  Fatherhood  of  God  and  the  Brotherhood  of  man ;  and  the  real  broad 
Christian  statesman  is  glad  to  accept  from  every  quarter  the  assistance 
which  will  elevate  the  people  and  lead  them  on  in  that  progress  that  we 
all  believe  the  American  peoj^le  are  making.  If  they  are  not — if  they  are 
not  going  to  higher  moral  standards,  then  all  this  material  progress,  all 
this  advance  in  luxury  and  comfort,   is  worth  nothing. 

I  am  an  optimist.  I  believe  we  are  better  to-day  than  we  were  fifty 
years  ago,  man  by  man.  I  believe  we  are  more  altruistic.  I  believe  that 
each  man  is  more  interested  in  his  fellow  than  he  was  fifty  or  one  hun- 
dred years  ago.  1  know  you  can  point  to  instances  of  self-depravity,  of 
selfishness  and  greed,  but  I  believe  those  instances  are  made  more  prom- 
inent because  we  condemn  them  more,  and  because  by  being  made  prom- 
inent the  happening  of  them  is  made  less  likely. 

I  am  glad  to  be  here.  I  hope  this  church  will  thrive.  I  hope  it  will 
maintain  its  high  principles  of  being  a  good  man  and  a  good  citizen  and 
mixing  them  together.  I  welcome  the  opportunity  to  be  able  as  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  to  say  that  there  is  no  church  in  this  country, 
however  humble,  which  preaching  1te:ue  religion,  which  preaching"  true 
morality,  will  not  have  my  support  and  my  earnest  effort  to  make  it  more 
successful  when  opportunity  offers. 


REMARKS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  NEW  BOV/ERY  MISSION, 
NEW  YORK  CITY,  DECEMBER  13,  1909. 

My  Fbiends  : — I  am  just  about  as  much  surprised  at  being  here  as 
you  are  at  seeing  me.  I  had  a  note  from  your  benefactor,  Dr.  Klopsch, 
asking  me  to  come  down  to  a  mission  which  he  had  established  in  the 
Bowery,  after  the  meeting  at  Carnegie  Hall.  Now,  I  have  known  Dr. 
Klopsch — well,  not  very  long — but  I  have  known  him  in  a  way  that  per- 
haps you  know  him.     I  know  him  by  what  he  has  done. 

It  has  been  my  fortune  in  life  to  play  a  good  deal  of  a  part  of  a 
figurehead.  Some  men  do  the  work  and  others  are  figureheads ;  and  na- 
ture developed  me  in  such  a  way  that  I  play  a  pretty  good  part  as  a  fig- 
urehead.   So  that  they  put  me  at  the  head  of  the  Red  Cross,  and  as  the 


74 

head  of  the  Red  Cross  I  came  to  know  the  enormous  energy  and  the  tre- 
mendous power  for  good  which  Dr.  Klopsch  could  exercise  through  the 
"Christian  Herald"  in  raising  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  to  re- 
lieve human  suffering  wherever  it  might  be  in  the  world.  And  so  when 
he  wrote  and  asked  me  to  come  here,  I  was  not  exactly  advised  as  to 
where  I  was  coming,  except  that  it  was  on  the  Bowery ;  I  have  always 
had  a  good  deal  of  curiosity  (for  I  have  not  lived  in  New  York)  to  know 
the  Bowery,  and  I  felt  certain  that  where  Dr.  Klopsch  and  the  Bowery 
met  there  would  probably  be  the  best  part  of  the  Bowery,  and  so  I 
came    here. 

Now,  your  superintendent  has  been  good  enough  to  say  some  com- 
plimentary things  about  my  coming  from  Carnegie  Hall  down  to  the 
Bowery  to  meet  you.  I  am  not  conscious  of  deserving  any  credit  for  that 
at  all.  As  I  look  into  your  faces  I  see  that  you  are  earnest  American 
citizens — to  use  a  colloquial  expression — some  of  you  "down  on  your  luclv" 
perhaps,  but  nevertheless  responding  in  every  fiber  of  your  body  to  the 
same  sentiments  of  loyalty  and  patriotism  and  love  of  country  and 
decency  and  aspirations  for  better  things  that  every  other  man,  I  hope, 
has  in  this  country.  I  am  glad  to  be  here,  if,  by  being  here  and  saying 
so,  I  can' convince  you  that  the  so-called  chasm  between  you  and  people 
who  seem  for  the  time  to  be  more  fortunate  is  not  a  chasm,  and  that 
there  is  extending  over  whatever  is  between  you  and  them  a  deep  feel- 
ing of  sympathy  and  a  deep,  earnest  desire  that  you  shall  have  that 
equality  of  opportunity,  that  means  of  getting  on  to  your  feet,  of  earning 
your  livelihood,  of  supporting  your  families,  that  we  hope  every  man 
under  the  Stars  and  Stripes  may  fully  enjoy.  I  am  glad  to  come  here 
and  to  testify  by  my  presence  my  sympathy  with  the  great  work  of  Dr. 
Klopsch  in  this  mission  by  which  he  shall  from  time  to  time  and  con- 
stantly, but  not  always  the  same  people,  help  over  hard  places,  help  over 
the  times  when  things  seem  desperate,  when  it  seems  as  if  the  Lord  and 
everybody  else  had  turned  against  you — should  help  you  over  those  times 
to  believe  that  there  are  people  in  the  world  who  sympathize  with  yoii 
and  wish  for  better  things,  and  enable  you  to  achieve  those  better  things 
that  the  equality  of  opportunity  in  this  country  I  hope  may  enable  you 
to  achieve. 

I  know  it  is  difficult  for  you  to  believe  that  I,  who  for  the  time 
being  am  receiving  a  large  salary  from  the  United  States  and  living  in 
comfort,  could  understand  or  take  into  my  heart  the  feeling  that  you 
may  have  of  desperation  and  of  a  sense  of  injustice  that  you  have  not 
had  the  chance  that  other  men  have  had ;  and  yet  I  assure  you  that  in 
spite  of  that  seeming  influence,  your  fellow-citizens  and  mine  are  not 
tke  greedy,  oppressive  persons  that  sometimes  people  would  make  yon 
believe,  but  that,  more  to-day  than  ever  in  the  history  of  the  world,  their 
hearts  are  open  and  their  desires  to  help  the  needy  and  lift  the  sufferlVig 
out  of  their  suffering  is  greater  to-day  than  it  ever  was  and  is  growing 
every  month.  Dr.  Klopsch  is  one  of  those  through  whom  I  hope  that 
thought  is  being  conveyed  to  you,  so  that  you  may  not  burn  with  a  sense 
of  injustice,  but  that  you  may  hope  on  and  struggle  on  with  the  belief 
that  the  future  is  brighter  for  you. 


75 


ADBKESS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  INSTALLATION  OF  WIL- 
LIAM ARNOLD  SIIANKLIN  AS  PRESIDENT  OF  WE.3LEYAN  UNI- 
VERSITY AT  THE  MIDDLESEX  THEATER,  MIDDLETOWN,  CONN., 
NOVEMBER    12,    1909. 

Mb.  President  : — After  the  felicitous  congratulations  which  you  have 
received  from  men  of  this  University,  from  men  of  your  own  Alma 
IVi.ater,  I  feel  a  little  as  if  I  were  uttering  an  alien  note,  for  it  has  not 
been  my  good  fortur*be  personally  to  know  you  long.  I  can  not  forget 
that  my  acquaintance  began  with  you  when  for  another  Presidency  I 
was  attempting  to  convince  the  people  how  they  ought  to  exercise  their 
judgment,  and  then  I  was  talking  and  it  seems  to  me  I  have  been  talk- 
ing ever  since ;  and  if  there  is  lacking  in  what  I  have  to  say  the 
polish  and  elegance  of  an  address  which  this  occasion  requires,  you,  sir, 
will  understand  from  the  exigency  in  which  you  saw  me  at  the  time 
vvh}'  it  is  absent  from  what  I  have  to  address  to  you. 

The  President  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  instituted  by  implication  a 
comparison  between  the  powers  which  you  are  about  to  exercise  and 
those  which  the  Constitution  accords  to  the  President  of  the  United 
States.  I  have  had  some  experience  in  college  government  of  an  incidental 
character,  and  I  am  able  to  congratulate  you,  sir,  that  the  powers  which 
you  will  exercise  as  President  are  the  powers  which  you  choose  to 
exercise.  It  is  well  that  it  should  be  so.  I  would  not  advocate  it  or  be 
understood  to  advocate  any  change  in  the  existing  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  I  think  that  excellent ;  but  for  the  control  of  an  insti- 
tution like  this,  in-order  that  it  may  work  out  its  destiny  as  it  should 
work  it  out,  the  great  responsibility  and  therefore  the  great  power 
must  be  in  its  President,  and  I  congratulate  you  that  it  is  so,  because 
of  the  opportunities  that  the  position  offers  in  the  development  of  the 
character  of  a  body  of  young  men  that  if  properly  developed  are  bound 
to  exercise  a  profound  influence  in  the  history  of  the  Nation.  Coming 
here  at  the  most  formative  period  in  their  lives,  they  here  take  in  not 
only  the  instruction  and  the  education,  to  observe  the  distinction  made 
by  that  gentleman  who  preceded  me  and  represented  nobody  (they  think 
differently  in  New  York)  (referring  to  Senator  Root),  but  also  that 
spirit  of  an  institution  called  sometimes  the  "college  spirit"  that  takes  its 
form  and  influence  as  much  from  the  personal  character  and  the  per- 
sonal influence  of  the  head  of  the  institution  as  from  any  other  source. 
Now,  that  spirit  is  different  from  the  education  that  we  get.  It  is 
something  hard  to  define.  It  is  something  that  stands  through  life  for 
the  men  who  come  under  its  influence  as  a  restraint  from  evil  and 
furnishes  an  aspiration  for  good.  Except  for  the  influence  of  the  family 
upon  the  man,  there  is  nothing  I  know  of  that  prompts  such  endeavor 
that  keeps  men  in  honorable  courses  like  the  desire  to  stand  well  with 
the  men  who  for  four  years  develop  their  youth  to  manhood  in  the 
same  class  and  under  the  same  influence.  Mr.  President,  the  influence 
of  the  college  graduate  and  the  duty  whicn  he  owes  to  himself  and 
society  to  take  an  interest  in  public  affairs  perhaps  I  may  speak  of  for 
a  moment.     I  can  not  forget  that  it  was  within  the  walls  of  Wesleyan 


76 

that  George  William  Curtis  delivered  that  great  oration  in  1865,  upon 
the  duty  of  the  college  man  and  the  scholar  in  politics,  and  I  doubt 
not  that  the  spirit  that  he  there  infused  has  continued  in  old  Wes- 
leyan  ever  since,  and  that  it  will  grow  under  your  influence. 

I  don't  know"  how  greater  intiuence  college  men  exert  to-day  in  the 
public  life  of  our  nation  than  before.  Certainly  there  are  more  of 
them.  Certainly  the  standard  is  as  high  in  the  institutions  of  learning 
to-day  as  it  ever  was.  I  can  not  help  thinking  that  unless  the  colleges 
of  the  country  and  the  universities  of  the  country  do  their  duty  and 
continue  to  turn  out  men  who  are  willing  to  sacrifice  themselves  to  the 
public  weal  there  will  be  a  retrograde  step  in  this  country.  Something 
has  been  said  about  small  colleges.  There  are  advantages  in  large 
colleges,  and  there  are  advantages  in  small  colleges.  The  advan- 
tage in  the  smaller  institution  is  that  you  come  closer  into  con- 
tact with  the  student  body,  you  as  President,  and  the  Faculty 
as  members,  and  that  there  comes  under  your  close  observation  the 
growth  of  the  character  of  the  men  for  whom  you  are  responsible.  Mr. 
Bryce  in  his  Commonwealth  comments  on  the  tremendous  advantage  that 
the  United  States  has  had  in  the  fact  that  there  are  small  colleges 
everywhere  in  the  country  offering  an  opportunity  by  proximity  to  the 
young  men  for  higher  education,  and  I  cannot  conceive  anything  more 
inviting  than  the  taking  of  a  comparatively  small  body  of  young  men, 
developing  them  under  your  immediate  influence  and  bringing  out  those 
traits  of  high  character  for  which,  after  all,  all  instruction  and  all 
education  and  all  training  are  the  preparation  and  the  basis.  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, I  am  one  of  those  who  have  advice  and  nothing  else  to  offer.  I 
congratulate  the  University  that  it  is  to  have  such  a  President.  A  col- 
lege president  is  first  of  all  a  teacher.  That  is  his  profession.  The  uni- 
versity is  a  teaching  instrument.  And  if  he  would  fulfill  the  measure 
of  his  duties  he  must  understand  how  teaching  is  best  done.  There- 
fore he  must  be  a  pedagogue.  It  is  his  profession.  Of  course,  as  in 
every  other  profession  where  a  great  institution  is  to  be  looked  after, 
he  must  have  executive  ability  and  he  must  have  the  power  of  select- 
ing the  men  for  the  work  which  they  are  to  do.  Now,  I  submit  that 
unless  he  is  a  teacher  and  understands  generally  with  reference  to  all 
the  teaching  that  is  to  be  done  in  the  university,  he  is  not  fitted  to 
make  the  selections  which  are  to  build  up  the  faculty,  which  is  to  do 
the  work  of  the  institution,  and  I  congratulate  you,  sir,  and  I  congratu- 
late the  University  that  it  has  a  President  that  fills  in  every  respect  the 
measure  which  I  have  described. 


REMARKS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  ALL  SOULS'  (UNITARIAN) 
CHURCH,  FOURTEENTH  AND  I  STREETS,  N.  W.,  WASHINGTON, 
D.  C,  MAY  15,  1910. 

My  Fellow  Unitarians: — I  am  not  sufficiently  advised  of  the  exact 
conditions  and  the  history  of  this  church  to  be  able  to  make  what  I 
have  to  say  authoritative,  or  perhaps  even  useful.    I  never  have  thought 


.      .77 

of  Unitarians  as  the  wealthy  people  oi  any  comniTinity:  I  do  not  think 
they  are.  I  had  a  very  novel  experience  at  Beverly  last  summer  in 
being-  asked  to  take  part  in  a  movement  for  a  charitable  organization  in 
the  neighborhood,  on  the  ground  that  if  I  did  I  might  arouse  the  in- 
terest of  some  rich  Unitarians  in  the  neighborhood,  and  it  was  a  novel 
sensation  to  me  to  be  put  in  that  attitude  toward  my  fellow  Unitarians. 
But  whether  we  of  this  congregation  are  poor  or  rich,  I  do  think 
it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  for  all  of  us  who  believe  in  the  Unita- 
rian Church  that  the  capital  of  the  country  should  have  a  suitable 
Unitarian  edifice  in  which  it  can  be  made  as  useful  as  possible.  I 
note  that  the  chairman  of  the  board  of  trustees  says  that  the  audi- 
torium is  large  enough.  I  do  not  presume  to  differ  with  him  as  to 
the  business  of  the  church,  but  I  think  we  have  had  visible  evidence 
during  the  wint,er  that  the  church  is  not  large  enough ;  and  I  do 
not  doubt  that  when  people  come  and  stand  in  the  aisle  during  one 
Sunday  service  and  find  it  difficult  to  get  seats,  it  discourages  their 
coming  again. 

We  certainly  ought  to  have  a  church  here  large  enough  to  afford 
seating  capacity  for  all  who  wish  to  come  under  the  beneficent  Uni- 
tarian influence.  We  have  a  preacher  who  attracts ;  we  have  a  church 
whose  principles  ought  to  attract  and  do  attract;  and  we  ought  to 
spare  no  effort  to  erect  a  large  enough  auditorium  to  give  comfortable 
opportunity  to  hear  to  those  who  would  come. 

No  one  can  have  listened  to  the  Sunday  School  exercises  here  at 
the  end  of  each  year  without  failing  to  realize  the  wonderful  educa- 
tional, Christian  influence  that  is  exercised  hy  our  Sunday  School,  and 
that    it    should    have    adequate    accommodations    is    essential. 

There  is  ho  time  in  the  history  of  the  church  and  in  the  history 
of  our  country  when  such  a  movement  is  likely  to  be  as  successful 
as  to-day.  We  have  prosperity.  We  shall  probably  be  able  to  dispose 
of  this  church  now  for  a  sum  as  high  as  at  any  time,  and  the  congre- 
gation is  probably  in  a  condition  to  give  more  liberally  now  than  it 
may  be  in  ten  years  hence.  For  that  reason,  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
moment  is  here  and  that  we  all  ought  to  strain  to  give  as  much  as 
possible  to  make  this  movement  a  success,  and  I  for  one,  although  only 
an  humble  worshipper  in  the  church,  vote   "aye." 


ADDRESS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  FORTY-FIFTH  BIENNIAL 
CONVENTION  OF  THE  GENERAL  SYNOD  OF  THE  EVANGELICAL 
CHURCH  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES,  AT  THE  LUTHER  MEMORIAL 
CHURCH,  WASHINGTON,  D.'c,  JUNE  7,   1911. 

Mb.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — I  have  listened  with  a  great 
deal  of  interest  to  a  review — a  summary — of  the  strength  and  virtue  of 
the  Lutherans  and  the  Lutheran  Church.  I  hardly  needed  such  an  intro- 
duction of  the  audience,  because  I  have  known  Lutherans  ever  sin(?e  I 
knew  anything.  I  came  from  Cincinnati.  More  than  one-third  of  our 
population  there  are  Germans,  and  a  great  majority  of  them  are  Luth- 


,       .;  78. 

erans.  I  never  think  oT  T.uLhernn?;  without  remembering-  the  only  German 
phrase  I  know,  and  that  I  am  uoL  q  lite  sure  is  grammatical — "Ein  Feste 
Burg-."     That  suj^g-ests  their  character  and  their  reliance. 

I  am  delig-hted  to  welcome  yon  to  Washington.  I  am  glad  you  have 
chosen  Washington  for  the  meeting  of  your  synod.  I  think  it  is  a  good 
city  to  come  to.  If  you  will  believe  some  of  my  friends,  like  Dr.  Rad- 
cliffe,  perhaps  your  presence  will  help  us.  But  seriously  speaking,  one 
of  the  pleasures  and  one  of  the  duties  of  the  President  has  come  to  be 
that  of  the  welcomcr  of  the  Capital  City  of  those  who  are  attracted  here 
to  hold  useful  conventions  in  the  sight,  so  to  speak,  of  the  United  States. 
Those  of  you  who  w^'alk  u'lder  the  dome  of  the  Capitol  have  the  feeling, 
I  know,  that  you  are  rigl.t  there  in  the  presence  of  the  country.  There 
the  spirit  of  nationalism— the  spirit  of  patriotism — seems  to  be  in  the 
atmosphere,  and  that  is  why  you  love  to  come  to  Washington,  and  to 
see  personified,  so  to  speak,  your  country. 

It  is  unnecessary  for  me  to  speak  of  the  strength  that  the  Lutheran 
Germans  and  the  Germans  g-enerally  have  added  to  our  civilization.  In 
Cincinnati  we  received  what  we  thought  was  the  "cream"  of  Germany 
in  1848  and  1849.  At  that  time  there  were  disturbances  in  Germany,  and 
men  who  advocated  the  utmost  freedom  in  government  found  homes  here 
a  little  more  comfortable  than  they  thought  they  would  be  if  they  stayed. 
They  were  men  of  indei>endence,  strength  and  of  high  standing  in  the 
communities  they  had  left,  and  they  stood  for  something  in  the  commu- 
nities into  which  they  came,  and  they  formed  the  leaders  of  those  Ger- 
mans who  went  into  the  Civil  War  for  the  purpose  of  upholding  the 
North,  vindicate  freedom  and  eradicating  slavery.  Therefore,  you  have 
a  history  to  which  you  may  look  back  with  intense  pride. 

I  am  glad  to  be  here  on  this  platform.  I  am  glad  to  congratulate  you 
on  such  a  convention.  I  am  glad  to  meet  the  Speaker  of  the  House  here 
in  such  good  company,  but  I  am  sorry  that  I  can  not  wait  to  hear  him. 
The  truth  is,  my  engagements  are  so  many  that  it  is  a  little  difficult  for 
me  to  keep  them.  I  have  just  left  the  Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States, 
with  whom  I  have  been  engaged  in  a  consideration  of  the  reform  of  the 
equity  procedure  of  Federal  Courts.  As  he  is  leaving  the  city,  and  as 
this  is  the  last  time  I  shall  have-the  opportunity  of  seeing  him,  I  must 
return  to  him,  and  I  must  ask  you  therefore  to  excuse  me. 

I  am  sure  the  result  of  the  synod  will  be  as  it  ought  to  be,  good 
for  the  church,  good  for  the  people  in  the  church,  and  good  for  the  coun- 
try. I  am  glad  to  welcome  such  sturdy  members  of  the  conimunity  as 
the  Lutherans  of  this  country. 


ABDEJ^SS  OF  PEESIDENT  TAFT  AT  THE  METHODIST  SOCIAL  UNION 
BANQUET,  AT  SHEREY'S,  NEW  YOEK  CITY,  APEIL  27,  1911. 

Mr.  Chairman,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — I  have  just  left  a  gathering 
of  newspaper  men  and  publishers,  the  largest  in  the  United  States,  and 
I  have  come  to  tell  you  one  great  advantage  that  you  have  over  that 
gathering,  and  that  is,  that  you  bring  the  ladies  down  to  your  level, 


and  give  them  an  opportunity  to  exercise  that  iTitiiieiice  whicli  when 
exercised  will  elevate  you  to  their  level. 

It  is  a  great  pleasure  to  address  a  Methodist  body  under  any  cir- 
cumstances, but  it  is  especially  a  pleasure  and  a  privilege  to  address  the 
Methodist  Social  Union.  Methodism  ia  militant  Christianity,  but  there 
is  nothing  in  the  militant  spirit  that  prevents  you  from  enjoying  the 
sweets  of  association,  and  so  it  is  that  you  have  always  cultivated,  so 
far  as  I  have  known  your  Church,  and  I  have  known  it  in  a  great  many 
different  climes  and  quarters — you  have  cultivated  a  social  side  as  well 
as  a  religious  side  of  life.  And  you  have  not  clothed  your  religion  with 
that  character  of  severity  and  rigidity  that  makes  the  members  long  for 
a  little  lack  of  restriction. 

I  have  come  into  contact  with  your  Church  under  conditions  where 
I  have  felt  its  beneficial  influence  in  a  marked  way.  It  fell  to  my  lot 
to  assume  responsibility  for  the  civil  government  of  some  six  or  eight 
millions  of  people  that  the  United  States  had  taken  over  as  a  guardian, 
in  order  to  point  the  way  to  good  government  and  better  civilization,  and 
and  in  that  work  I  found  Methodist  brethren  and  Methodist  missionaries 
at  my  back,  anxious  to  furnish  their  support  and  every  assistance  pos- 
sible. The  truth  is  I  became  so  much  a  friend  of  one  of  the  Methodist 
brethren  in  the  Philippines  that  I  have  been  running  him  for  Bishop  ever 
since,  but  I  have  not  yet  been  successful.  But,  my  friends,  I  have  just 
inflicted  a  speech  of  about  forty  minutes  on  one  audience,  and  my  love 
and  consideration  for  you  will  prevent  my  repetition  of  the  same  cruelty 
on  you.  I  am  going  on — ^moving  on  as  Joe  did  in  Bleak  House.  One 
limitation  to-night  is  that  I  have  to  catch  the  midnight  train  in  order  to 
reach  Washington  in  the  morning.  I  ask  you  therefore  to  excuse  me 
from  further  remarks  because  there  are  two  other  dinners  that  await 
my  consumption. 

I  thank  you  sincerely  for  your  very  cordial  reception,  and  I  thank 
your  management  for  the  opportunity  of  addressing  such  a  beautiful  and 
attractive  audience. 


ADDEESS  OF  PRESIDENT  TAFT  ON  THE  0€CASION  OF  THE  FIF- 
TIETH ANNIVERSARY  OF  THE  PRIESTHOOD  AND  THE  TWENTY- 
FIFTH  ANNIVERSARY  OF  THE  CAEDINALATE  OF  HIS  EMI- 
NENCE JAMES  CARDINAL  GIBBONS,  AT  THE  FIFTH  REGIMENT 
ARMORY,  BALTIMORE,  IVLARYLAND,  JUNE  6,  1911. 

Ladies  and  Gentlemen  : — ^This  assembly,  I  venture  to  say,  can  find 
few  counterparts  in  history.  We  are  mcrt  us  American  citizens  to  con- 
gratulate the  American  primate  of  one  of  the  great  ci) arches  of  the  world 
upon  the  twenty-fifth  anniversary  of  his  accession  t(j  the  highest  office 
in  his  Church  but  one,  and  upon  the  fiftieth  anniversary  of  his  entering 
the  Church  as  one  of  its  priests.  We  are  not  here  ;is  members  of  any 
denomination.  We  are  not  here  in  any  oflicial  capacity.  Bat  we  are  here 
to  recognize  and  honor  in  him  hia  high  virtues  as  a  patriotic  member 
of  our  political  community  and  one  who  through  his  ifj'g  and  useful  life 


-80 

has  spared  no  efforts  in  the  caxise  of  good  citizenship  and  the  uplifting 
of  'his  fellow-men. 

As  American  citizens  we  are  proud  that  his  prominence  in  the  Church 
broug-ht  him  25  years  ago  the  rank  of  Cardinal.  The  rarity  with  which 
this  rank  is  conferred  in  his  Church  upon  bishops  and  priests  so  far  from 
Rome  is  an  indication  of  the  position  which  he  had  won  among  his  fellow 
churchmen.  But  what  we  are  especially  delighted  to  see  confirmed  in  him 
and  his  life  is  the  entire  consistency  which  he  has  dejnonstrated  between 
earnest  and  single-minded  patriotism  and  love  of  country  on  the  one 
hand,  and  sincere  devotion  to  his  Church  and  God  upon  the  other.  One  of 
the  tenets  of  his  Church  is  respect  for  constituted  authorit3%  and  always 
have  w^e  found  him  on  the  side  of  law  and  order,  always  in  favor  of  peace 
and  good  will  to  all  men,  always  in  favor  of  religious  tolerance,  and 
always  strong  in  the  conviction  that  complete  freedom  in  the  matter  of 
religion  is  the  best  condition  under  which  churches  may  thrive.  With 
pardonable  pride  he  points  to  the  fact  that  Maryland  under  Catholic  con- 
trol was  among  the  first  to  give  complete  religious  tolerance. 

Nothing  could  more  clearly  show  the  character  of  the  man  whose 
jubilee  we  celebrate  than  the  living  testimonial  that  this  assembly  is  to 
his  value  as  a  neighbor  in  the  community  of  Baltimore.  If  you  would 
find  what  a  man  is,  go  to  his  home  and  his  neighbors,  and  there  if  every- 
thing that  he  does  and  says  rings  true  and  shows  his  heartwhole  interest 
in  the  welfare  of  men  and  women  and  children  near  about  him,  you  have 
the  strongest  proof  of  his  virtues  as  a  lover  of  mankind. 

Born  in  Baltimore,  educated  in  Ireland,  made  a  priest  in  Maryland, 
a  curate  in  North  Carolina,  a  bishop  in  Bichmond,  a  coadjutor  in  Balti- 
more, Archbishop  of  Baltimore  and  successor  of  Archbishop  Carroll  and 
Archbishop  Kendrick  in  the  primatial  see  of  this  country,  he  was  called 
to  the  high  position  of  Cardinal  June  7,  1886,  by  Leo  XIII. 

In  spite  of  the  burden  and  responsibilities  of  hia  high  position  in 
the  Church,  he  has  taken  part  in  the  many  great  movements  for  I'le 
betterment  of  mankind,  and  has  shown  himself  not  only  a  good  Catholic 
in  the  church  sense,  but  he  has  been  broadly  catholic  in  the  secular 
sense  of  that  word,  so  that  the  aifection  felt  for  him  by  his  co-religionists 
has  spread  to  all  denominations  and  to  all  the  people,  who  are  quick  to 
see  a  disinterested  friend. 

That  he  may  long  continue  active  in  his  present  high  position,  that 
he  may  long  continue  in  secular  movements  to  take  the  prominent  place 
he  has  always  had  in  works  of  usefxilness,  is  the  fervent  prayer  of  Cath- 
olic and  Protestant,  of  Jew  and  Chrisitian. 


I 


en  con: 
the  be 

1.  ] 
mould 
of  the 
sequen 

2.  I 
sentati 
Servic( 
gresses 

3.  E 

througl 
control] 
ters ; 

4.  B, 
best  ca^ 
proclam 
Conseqi 

5.  B3 
and  Ag( 
of  Arbii 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN     INITIAL     FINE     OF     25     CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  SO  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.00  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


APH  14    1933 
APR  15  ^3 


v.-/ 


%'. 


J3r, 


iiun'49DB 

>.       HNov'ifiCB 

NOV  4    ^3^^ 


^7Jun'6oF^ 

1  mo 

22Ma^tOA 

Kl-CD  LD 

iAn2i3i 

JUL  3 1  W 


,  by 

and 


the 

ases 

on- 


[3  re- 
otic 
"on- 


md 
be 
ar- 


ms 
L  a 

!he 


ns 


LD  21-50m-l,'33  -S- 


6.  Bv 

lions,   tl: 

World;  the  rights  of  life,  liberty,  labor  and  capitll "pro^^ 
erlj  safeguarded,  and  such  conditions  of  industrial  and 
economic  competition  secured  as  are  fundamental  to  Uni- 
versal Peace. 


LOAN  DEPT. 

u    i««aate  stamped  below.  Of 
rUis  book  is  <i»iX*tJwhfrrenew^ed. 

on  the  date  to  jj^ediate  recall. 

Reoewe4bool«at^2iif"  1 


0 


\y 


.^■«-' 


rEC'D  Lu 
HftR  1 0'64;gl 


LD  2lA-50m-ll,'62 
(D3279sl0)476B 


..^sr!,|-^ts.ni. 


""'"•grkeUr 


